French president preaches globalism, transnationalism, interventionism.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
In a rebuke bordering on national insult Nov. 11, French President Emmanuel Macron retorted to Donald Trump’s calling himself a nationalist. “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism; nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”
As for Trump’s policy of “America first,” Macron trashed such atavistic thinking in this new age: “By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values.”
Though he is being hailed as Europe’s new anti-Trump leader who will stand up for transnationalism and globalism, Macron reveals his ignorance of America.
Trump’s ideas are not ideological but rooted in our country’s history.
America was born between the end of the French and Indian War, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Both the general who led us in the Revolution and the author of that declaration became president. Both put America first. And both counseled their countrymen to avoid “entangling” or “permanent” alliances with any other nation, as we did for 160 years.
Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lacking in patriotism?
When Woodrow Wilson, after being re-elected in 1916 on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War,” took us into World War I, he did so as an “associate,” not as an Allied power. U.S. troops fought under U.S. command.
After that war, the Senate rejected an alliance with France. Under Franklin Roosevelt, Congress formally voted for neutrality in any future European war.
The U.S. emerged from World War II as the least bloodied and least damaged nation because we remained out of the war for more than two years after it had begun.
We did not invade France until four years after France was occupied, the British had been thrown off the Continent, and Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union had been fighting and dying for three years.
The leaders who kept us out of the two world wars as long as they did—did they not serve our nation well, when America’s total losses were just over 500,000 dead, compared with the millions other nations lost?
At the Armistice Day ceremony, Macron declared, “By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest … its moral values.”
But Trump did not say that other countries don’t matter. He only said we should put our own country first.
What country does Macron put first? Or does the president of France see himself as a citizen of the world with responsibility for all of Europe and all of mankind?
Charles de Gaulle was perhaps the greatest French patriot in the 20th century. Yet he spoke of a Europe of nation-states, built a national nuclear arsenal, ordered NATO out of France in 1966, and, in Montreal in 1967, declared, “Long live a free Quebec”—inciting French Canadians to rise up against “les Anglo-Saxons” and create their own nation.
Was de Gaulle lacking in patriotism?
By declaring American nationalists anti-patriotic, Macron has asserted a claim to the soon-to-be-vacant chair of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
But is Macron really addressing the realities of the new Europe and world in which we now live, or is he simply assuming a heroic liberal posture to win the applause of Western corporate and media elites?
The realities: In Britain, Scots are seeking secession, and the English have voted to get out of the European Union. Many Basques and Catalans wish to secede from Spain. Czechs and Slovaks have split the blanket and parted ways.
Anti-EU sentiment is rampant in populist-dominated Italy.
A nationalism their peoples regard as deeply patriotic has triumphed in Poland and Hungary and is making gains even in Germany.
The leaders of the world’s three greatest military powers—Trump in the U.S., Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China—are all nationalists. Turkish nationalist Recep Tayyip Erdogan rules in Ankara, Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi in India. Jair Bolsonaro, a Trumpian nationalist, is the incoming president of Brazil. Is not Benjamin Netanyahu an Israeli nationalist?
In France, a poll of voters last week showed that Marine Le Pen’s renamed party, Rassemblement National, has moved ahead of Macron’s party for the May 2019 European Parliament elections.
If there is a valid criticism of Trump’s foreign policy, it is not that he has failed to recognize the new realities of the 21st century but that he has not moved expeditiously to dissolve old alliances that put America at risk of war in faraway lands where no vital U.S. interests exist.
Why are we still committed to fight for a South Korea far richer and more populous than a nuclear-armed North? Why are U.S. planes and ships still bumping into Russian planes and ships in the Baltic and Black seas?
Why are we still involved in the half-dozen wars into which Bush II and Barack Obama got us in the Middle East?
Why do we not have the “America first” foreign policy we voted for?
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, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM
Radical Left Shows Its True Colors
The family of politically incorrect talk show host Tucker Carlson has been threatened by unhinged leftists.
By John Friend
Tucker Carlson, the popular and outspoken Fox News host who continues to dominate the cable news ratings, was recently targeted by antifa protesters at his home in the Washington, D.C. area. Police are investigating the protest, which took place while Carlson was at the Fox News studio preparing for his live nightly news program, as a potential hate crime.
On Nov. 7, several members of Smash Racism DC, a radical left-wing antifa-affiliated group, posted Carlson’s home address online before several of its members showed up there to protest. The group of roughly 20 individuals chanted anti-racist slogans outside Carlson’s home and called him a “racist scumbag” that needs to flee the city. Carlson’s wife was home alone at the time, and she quickly called police after hearing loud banging on her front door and people outside with bullhorns screaming.
“I called my wife,” Carlson told The Washington Post after learning about the protest at his home via text message. “She had been in the kitchen alone getting ready to go to dinner and she heard pounding on the front door and screaming. Someone started throwing himself against the front door and actually cracked the front door.”
The participants in the protest posted a video of their actions on social media, but it was quickly removed following backlash. In the now-deleted video, protesters can be heard shouting: “Tucker Carlson, we are outside your home!” Clearly, the group was attempting to intimidate Carlson and his family, a common tactic of radical left-wing antifa groups.
The protesters ludicrously insisted Carlson promotes hate on his nightly news program and preaches “an ideology that has led to thousands of people dying,” according to the video. In an obvious attempt at intimidation, one protester can be heard shouting, “We want you to know, we know where you sleep at night!” The group then began chanting, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”
D.C. police quickly responded to the incident, but as AFP goes to press, no arrests have been made despite the horde vandalizing Carlson’s home with an anarchy symbol. In the wake of several high-profile arrests of right-wing activists who participated in various political rallies over the past two years, many are wondering when political criminals and terrorists on the left—such as those involved in the attempt to terrorize at Carlson’s family—will be prosecuted for their criminal actions.
Alaina Gertz, a spokesperson for the D.C. Metropolitan Police, told the press that an investigation is currently open into the incident.
“We welcome those who come here to exercise their First Amendment rights in a safe and peaceful manner; however, we prohibit them from breaking the law,” Gertz stated the day after the protest. “Last night, a group of protesters broke the law by defacing private property at a Northwest D.C. residence. MPD takes these violations seriously, and we will work to hold those accountable for their unlawful actions.”
In Washington, D.C., a criminal targeting someone for their political views can be prosecuted for committing a hate crime.
“It wasn’t a protest. It was a threat,” Carlson stated in the aftermath of the event. “They weren’t protesting anything specific that I had said. They weren’t asking me to change anything. They weren’t protesting a policy or advocating for legislation. . . . They were threatening me and my family and telling me to leave my own neighborhood in the city that I grew up in.”
In related news, it has also been revealed that Carlson’s daughter was verbally accosted by an irate man while having dinner with her father and brother at a country club in Charlottesville, Va. last month. Juan Granados, a former member of the country club who has since had his membership revoked for his disgraceful actions, stopped Carlson’s daughter while she was walking back to the dinner table after using the restroom.
Granados asked the young lady if she was sitting with Tucker Carlson, to which she responded, “That’s my dad.” Granados then verbally assaulted the young lady, using vulgar language and insulting her.
Carlson and his son then confronted Granados, who became “profane” once again, according to a statement released by Carlson. In response, Carlson’s son threw a glass of red wine in Granados’s face and demanded he leave the club, which he eventually did.
“Immediately after the incident, I described these events to the management of the Farmington Country Club,” Carlson noted following recent press coverage of this incident. “The club spent more than three weeks investigating the incident. Last week, they revoked the man’s membership and threw him out of the club.”
Holding politically incorrect opinions and being a champion of honest, straightforward journalism is no small task in modern America. As Carlson’s experience shows, the radical left will stop at nothing to intimidate and silence their political opponents, often times using some of the most dishonorable, disgraceful tactics available at their disposal.
John Friend is a freelance author based in California.
Audio Interview: Joseph Green on the Deep Truth of Jonestown
November 18th marked 40 years since the Jonestown massacre, and AFP is pleased to offer this fascinating interview. Writer and radio host S.T. Patrick presents the Midnight Writer News Show, Episode 80: “Joseph Green on the Deep Truth of Jonestown.”
Hosted by S.T. Patrick
Researcher, author, and publisher Joseph Green joins S.T. Patrick to discuss the deep truth of the 1978 Jonestown massacre, the subject of Green’s new zine, An Intro to the Jonestown Massacre Conspiracy: 1978 from Microcosm Publishing.
In this episode of the Midnight Writer News Show, Green discusses his favorite alternative publications of the past, the historical basis for the demographics that brought the Guyanese government to power, the parapolitics behind the Guyanese government of the 1970s, the rise of Jim Jones in Indiana, the U.S. intelligence links to Indiana University, the friendship of Jones with Dan Mitrione, the move to Ukiah and the World Vision links, Catcher in the Rye, whether or not Jones was a “real preacher,” how Reagan’s California affected events, Congressman Leo Ryan, Mark Lane’s role at Jonestown, and much, much more.
The recent acts of violence against worshipers in a Pittsburgh synagogue have further stifled debate and are paving the way for more extremism.
By Philip Giraldi
Ever since the killing of 11 worshipers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, I have been waiting to see how the Israeli government would cynically take advantage of the tragedy to support its own agenda. It didn’t take long, even though the gunman Robert Bowers was open in his hatred of Jews largely due to immigration issues, while having no particular animus against Israel. In fact, ironically, Israel does not even accept that Tree of Life is an acceptable part of the Jewish religion, as Israel’s Orthodox chief rabbi does not consider it to be a legitimate synagogue because it is too progressive.
Most American Jews are politically liberal and vote consistently Democratic, 79% having done so in the latest election. That in turn means that a majority of them are turned off by President Donald Trump’s words and ideology, so much so that there is some speculation that the opposition to Trump is largely Jewish. The Israeli government and the small but disproportionately powerful percentage of right-wing American Jews are, however, in love with Trump because of his uncritical support of Israel’s actions vis-à-vis its neighbors.
This has meant that some in the Tree of Life congregation have blamed Trump’s incendiary language as a contributing element in the hate-filled culture that they perceive as being behind the shooting rampage. Some congregants were opposed to Trump’s visiting the synagogue a few days after the incident, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government quickly intervened to defend Trump against all charges.
Trump encountered protesters as he entered the synagogue, where he was not greeted at the door by one of the rabbis or a congregant. Instead, as he entered, he shook the hand of the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer.
Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, described the bizarre encounter: “The fact that the person who officially greeted the president of the United States at an American city at an American synagogue was the ambassador of another country was stunning.”
Dermer had, in fact, been working together with Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs Naftali Bennett to counter any criticism of Trump. “I think blaming President Trump for this horrific massacre is unfair; it’s flatly wrong,” said Bennett before adroitly shifting his comments to what the president has done for Israel: “The president moved the embassy to Jerusalem. The president is fighting Israel’s biggest enemy, which is a terrible regime in Iran. And so, the president is no anti-Semite.”
The hypocritical Israeli response to the massacre in Pittsburgh was hardly overflowing with concern for the victims. Bennett took the opportunity to hit out at other targets deemed to be hostile to Israel that could plausibly be linked to the incident, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who had likened Jews to termites. And the Israeli Consul General in New York City Dani Dayan even became involved in the impending midterm elections, slamming Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar running for Congress for once having said that Israel is “hypnotizing the world.”
Netanyahu also changed the subject from Pittsburgh on the day before the midterms, praising Trump’s courage in increasing sanctions on Iran, saying, “I would like to thank President Donald Trump again for a courageous, determined, and important decision. I think that this contributes to stability, security, and peace. . . . This is a great day for the state of Israel. This is a great day for the people of Israel. This is a great day for the future of Israel.”
Dermer also implicated Israel’s preferred bête noir, attacking the role of what he chose to describe as the “radical left.” The expression is preferred usage by the Israeli government and its allies in the United States to describe supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS). Dermer elaborated: “One of the big forces in college campuses today is anti-Semitism. And those anti-Semites are usually not neo-Nazis, on college campuses. They’re coming from the radical left. We have to stand against anti-Semitism whether it comes from the right or whether it comes from the left.”
So we can expect the Pittsburgh tragedy to be heavily exploited by Israel and its friends. It will be parlayed into all kinds of mischief on behalf of the Jewish state, with the non-violent BDS movement being particularly targeted. BDS has already been attacked through legislation in 23 states with job applicants or recipients of benefits in some jurisdictions having to sign documents confirming that they do not support any boycott of Israel. There are also a number of federal-level bills seeking to define criticism of Israel as a hate crime with legal penalties attached, a direct attack on the First Amendment. Now that the Democrats are in power in the House, it will get worse, believe it or not.
Five key committee chairmanships will be going to Jewish congressmen, all of whom are ardent Zionists. Two of them will be in key positions to further distort U.S. policy in favor of Israel. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) will become head of the House Intelligence Committee and Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) will be chairman of the House Foreign Relations committee.
Engel is a dream-come-true for Netanyahu, just as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is in the Senate. He opposed Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran while strongly supporting Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. He has attacked the United Nations, the World Court, and the European Union for raising concerns over Israeli violations of international humanitarian law, and he insists that Israel bears no responsibility for thousands of civilian deaths from its bombing of crowded urban areas in Gaza, declaring that Israel is simply exercising its “right to self-defense” and that Israel “goes to extraordinary lengths to target only terrorist actors.” He calls recognizing Palestinian statehood “preposterous,” opposes any United Nations involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and supports using U.S. vetoes to halt any UN resolutions critical of Israel.
There are far too many Engels in Congress, and far too many in the Trump administration. David Friedman, a former bankruptcy lawyer who is Trump’s U.S. ambassador to Israel, recently made a speech in Tel Aviv in which he described the U.S. as his “country of citizenship” while Israel is the country that he “loves so much.” Excuse me, but this buffoon is paid a great deal of taxpayer money to represent the United States not to pander to his coreligionists. It is a travesty that he should be an ambassador anywhere and one more example of how none of the rules apply to Israel. Friedman is by his own admission not loyal to the United States. He should be removed from office, and it should be suggested that he turn in his U.S. passport and go to live in the country that he “loves so much.”
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.
Midterm Election Results: Losing White Votes, Gaining ‘Victim’ Votes
By Paul Craig Roberts
Readers are asking for my thoughts about the midterm elections. Looking at political maps, it seems that except for thin areas of the Northeast and West Coasts and Hispanic and black enclaves in the Southwest and South, the country overwhelmingly voted Republican.
In my opinion, flyover America voted Republican because the “deplorables” want to defend President Donald Trump. They want to defend him for two reasons. One is that he spoke to their economic plight caused by the U.S. corporations exporting their jobs, leaving the American workforce and middle class hard-strapped.
The other is that the adoption of identity politics by the Democratic Party has made the Democrats the party that hates white people—especially white heterosexual males who are defined as the victimizer of minorities, homosexuals, and women. It takes a really stupid white person to vote for Democrats who see white people as the problem.
Until the Clintons, the Democratic Party represented the working class. The Democrats were an offset to the Republicans who represented business. This kept things in balance. But the Democrats under the Clintons gave the OK for the Republicans to send the Democrats’ voting constituency’s jobs offshore. In exchange for selling out their constituency, the Clintons obtained Republican financing for the Democratic Party. Both parties are now run by the same Big Money.
The working class, abandoned by the Democrats, now votes Republican. The Democratic Party’s voting constituency no longer contains the dispossessed working class. The Democrats have turned to hate. They are now the party of hate. The Democrats teach hate to the “victim groups” of identity politics.
This hate makes whites the Democratic Party’s victims. Thus, the Democrats lose the white vote but gain the “victim” vote. Immigration ensures that eventually the “victim” vote will be greater than the white vote, in which case under the rule of the Democrats’ identity politics, white people in America will become the victimized group. Indeed, if you pay attention to what many Democrats are saying, that is their intention. According to reports I have read recently, 75% of Democrats want to impeach Trump. The reports do not say why. I think the only reason is hate. Trump is the epitome of the billionaire white male oppressor who “grabs women by the [expletive deleted].”
There you have it.
What I find extraordinary is that Trump, although on the Republican ticket, ran as a Democrat. He was for peace with Russia. He was for jobs for the working class. Peace and jobs are Democratic slogans. But Democrats hated him, because he is the epitome of the oppressive white male, and this irrational hate led them into an alliance with the military-security complex, which strongly opposes peace with Russia, as such a peace threatens their budget and power. The Democrats, working hand-in-hand with the Deep State, have blocked peace with Russia and have championed mass third-world immigration into the U.S., which will further wreck the economic existence of the working class, in order to gain Democratic votes from third-world immigrants to offset the lost American working-class votes.
The Democrats apparently do not understand that the jobs for the illegal aliens depended on the middle-class incomes of the American work force. With these incomes vanishing, illegal aliens no longer come for non-existent jobs; they come to collect welfare paid for by Americans who have lost their livelihoods.
I would say that, unless white Americans succumb to guilt and collapse, the Democratic Party is finished. The midterm election was the Democratic Party’s last hurrah.
This would not mean that the future is rosy. The Democrats have forced Trump into an aggressive stance toward the rest of the world. It is aggression that the U.S. cannot back up. Can Trump with his bully personality back down?
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 at www.AmericanFreePress.net.
Mueller Subpoenas Trump Associates
Special prosecutor Robert Mueller is questioning Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and associates in a last-ditch effort to get President Trump.
By S.T. Patrick
Dr. Jerome Corsi has jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. The former Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Alex Jones’s Infowars website testified once before a grand jury tied to the Robert Mueller investigation on Sept. 7. He is currently submitting to a series of interviews and will appear before the grand jury again. Mueller’s investigative team is overtly circling famed Republican operative Roger Stone’s closest Trump-era associates, waiting to pounce at any hint of Russian collusion.
The special prosecutor now wants to know if Corsi had any knowledge that Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email had been hacked by Russian agents prior to the 2016 presidential election. Mueller also wants to know if Corsi had any private knowledge that WikiLeaks had obtained some of the emails.
It is likely that Mueller already knows the answer to the questions being posed to Corsi. The formality, then, is the offering up of rope so that Corsi, Stone, or another associate can legally hang themselves if they do not answer honestly. New York comedian-activist Randy Credico and the former Manhattan Madam and gubernatorial candidate Kristin M. Davis, both former associates of Stone, have already been interviewed. ABC News is reporting that at least 11 associates of Stone have been contacted by the special prosecutor.
Corsi has built a career as a conspiracy theorist who leads charges. He has produced works on JFK, 9/11, the politics of oil, and the theory that Hitler escaped Germany at the end of World War II. However, his most notable achievements concern the mini-movements he helped fashion. He was the most public voice for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry in 2004, he held a press conference in 2007 to call for George W. Bush’s impeachment over 9/11 truth, and he was at the genesis of “birtherism,” the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii. In this, he had an ally in Trump. Recently, he has been one of the most vocal proponents of QAnon.
When Jones announced the addition of Corsi to the Infowars staff, he bragged that Corsi and Trump had been acquainted for “40-plus years.” Corsi has appeared with Stone on a variety of Infowars programs.
Corsi’s attorney, David Gray, has said that Corsi “fully intends to comply with the subpoena.” Gray suspects that a majority of the questions presented to Corsi will be designed to delve into the conversations his client had with Stone: Was Stone the pivot between Trump and WikiLeaks? When did Stone know that WikiLeaks had emails from the Democratic National Convention? And had Stone ever contacted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?
Stone has been a provocateur in Republican politics since the Watergate era. Driven by a hard edge, a luxurious wardrobe, and killer instinct for the deeper machinations of partisan politics, he has been sought out by presidents and pundits, PR firms and pontificators. After Lee Atwater passed away in 1991, Stone ascended to first chair of the political strategists that politicians need and commentators hate. He is someone who controls the message ahead of the mainstream media, which also makes him the bane of opposition journalists in the field.
It is likely that Mueller will not end this investigation without justifying his appointment via American indictments. As Corsi wrote in his most recent book, Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump, “If Special Counsel Mueller fails to produce an indictment specifically charging someone in the Trump campaign with ‘Russian collusion,’ he will begin to justify Trump’s charge that his investigation is a ‘witch hunt.’ ”
If Trump, the whale in this political sea, cannot be indicted, then Mueller seems to be satisfied with the trophies of a few sharks. If Corsi has information useful to Mueller, the special prosecutor’s office will soon have it. If so, that may, in turn, help build a case against Stone, Corsi’s recent colleague.
At age 72, Corsi may not risk prison time in exchange for party loyalty. In 2007, Corsi had said that he was not even a Republican, blaming the moment of self-realization on the fact that the more moderate “Rockefeller wing” still controlled the party. In 2008, he considered accepting the nomination of the Constitution Party for president but withdrew before the convention.
Stone is also one of D.C.’s coolest characters. If he is worried, it won’t show. He will continue to push the narrative he wants believed.
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.
Invasion Arguments: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
In the midterms, both candidates and voters focused heavily on immigration, a hot-button issue for both sides of the debate. There are good, bad, and ugly arguments on both sides.
By Dr. Kevin Barrett
The 2018 midterm elections should have been about the booming economy. Normally, Americans vote their pocketbook. The truest thing Bill Clinton ever said (maybe the only true thing) was, “It’s the economy, stupid!”
Donald Trump’s economic boom favored Republicans in the midterms. But both parties focused instead on immigration, and the election was dominated by images of the “migrant caravan” moving relentlessly toward the United States. The caravan, which began in U.S.-military-base-occupied Honduras, quickly swelled to more than 5,000 people. In response, Trump ordered 5,000 troops to the border to repel the “invasion.”
Polls show that Trump’s economic policies are more popular than his immigration policies and rhetoric, which appeal to slightly less than 4-in-10 Americans, while alienating a significantly larger segment of the population. Did the president blunder by focusing so intensely on immigration during the midterm campaign? Was it an attempt to mobilize his base to ensure Republican control of the Senate, while sacrificing less-crucial House seats? Or is the president a man of principle who stands his ground even when it’s politically unpopular? If so, that would make him a very unusual politician.
The immigration debate stirs up emotions on both sides, often yielding more heat than light, which makes it irresistible to politicians seeking to mobilize their base. They incite their followers by pushing the usual emotional buttons: Pro-immigration groups call their opponents “racists” and “Nazis” among other unlovely terms, while anti-immigration groups exaggerate the threat posed by “criminals and terrorists” sneaking into the country.
There are good, bad, and ugly arguments on both sides. Let’s start with the good arguments against immigration.
By far the best anti-immigration argument is “population vs. resources.” The United States is the world’s richest country because a small, ambitious, talented population took over a vast underexploited wilderness rich in resources. Our quality of life, which includes preserving wild nature, will diminish as our population increases and our resources are depleted. Since immigration is by far the biggest contributor to population increase, slowing or better yet stopping immigration is crucial to preserving our quality of life. The notion that we need endless growth, driven by an ever-growing labor force, is rank nonsense spewed by ignorant economists brainwashed into loving today’s cancerous usury-based economy.
Another good argument against immigration is that it drives down wages for unskilled American workers. This is undoubtedly true. The counterargument, “No Americans will do these jobs,” is absurd, because supply and demand would quickly raise wages to whatever level it takes to convince the native worker that the job is worth doing. So yes, well-off Americans would pay more for their vegetables if farm workers were paid $20 an hour; but poor unskilled Americans would be vastly better off due to all those $20-an-hour jobs—which are now being filled by impoverished immigrants willing to do them for a whole lot less.
A somewhat less-compelling argument holds that immigration threatens America’s cultural cohesiveness. Historically, poor immigrants from various parts of the world have been coming to the United States and gradually assimilating. It is possible that something has changed that makes today’s immigrants less prone to assimilation, but I have not found compelling evidence to support this assertion. On the contrary, it seems that cultural degradation, in the form of the breakdown of family values, is an internal American phenomenon. If anything, immigrants seem to have stronger family values than natives do.
Along with the good and so-so arguments against immigration, there are the truly ugly ones. The notions of “Hispanic criminality” and “Islamic terrorism” are obscene nonsense spewed by xenophobes and the crooked politicians who exploit them. Statistics compiled by conservative publisher Ron Unz among others show that Hispanic immigrants are less prone to criminal behavior than native-born Americans. And the whole bogus “Islamic terror” threat was manufactured by neocon Zionists using 9/11 and other false flags. American Muslims are actually better law-abiding citizens, with stronger family values and lower crime and violence rates, than native-born non-Muslims.
As for pro-immigration arguments, they cannot successfully refute two key points: (1) Quality of life depends on population vs. resources, and (2) unskilled American workers are hurt by immigration. The honest pro-immigration arguments are: “To hell with working-class native-born Americans, I want my cheap fruits and vegetables!” “To hell with the environment and real quality of life, I want a bigger GDP!” “I like having people around with whom I can practice my Spanish!” “I like having more people coming to our local mosque!”
I personally agree with the latter two propositions. But viewed objectively, I am not sure they are terribly compelling arguments.
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.
Caught on Camera: ‘Lie for Asylum’
The American head of an NGO immigrant support group has been caught on camera talking about teaching migrants how to cry, feign illness, pretend to be Christians … anything to fool border guards. This coverage of yet more corruption within so-called aid groups working to promote migration is front-page news in the latest American Free Press newspaper. (Log-in to read your digital copy here; subscribe now here)
By John Friend
The director of a major non-governmental organization (NGO) in Europe that provides legal aid to migrants and helps facilitate the overall asylum-seeking process has been caught on tape admitting to coaching their clients to deceive and lie to border police in order to successfully gain political asylum, it has been revealed.
Immigration critics are now wondering just how widespread this is and if NGOs in the U.S. and in Central America are doing the very same thing.
Lauren Southern, a popular Canadian independent journalist, political pundit, and documentary filmmaker, released the shocking video earlier this week, sparking outrage and condemnation around the world.
Europe and the wider Western world, particularly countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, such as Greece and Italy, have seen a steady influx of asylum seekers and ostensible refugees fleeing the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia primarily over the course of the past five or more years.
Many view the flood of refugees and other Third World migrants as part of a broader systematic effort to undermine and destroy Western nations by eroding the traditional demographics and displacing the native populations of Europe and other Western nations.
As this newspaper has reported, various NGOs and other activist groups often facilitate the refugee resettlement process and are financially rewarded for resettling Third World migrants in the West. Deceptive tactics are regularly used to facilitate the resettlement process, including forged or faked documents, feigned persecution stories, and other deceitful tactics.
In the video, Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, an NGO operating mainly in Greece to provide legal aid to refugees, openly admits to teaching her clients to lie to border agents by pretending to be persecuted Christian refugees or to be in emotional distress. The undercover video will be featured in Ms. Southern’s upcoming documentary entitled “Borderless,” which focuses on the migrant crisis and massive Third World migration to the West.
According to Ms. Southern’s website, Ricker “reveals that her organization has spent time compiling and studying transcripts of asylum interviews” and uses “them to generate stock answers to key interview questions for asylum seekers to use.” Advocates Abroad even encourages refugee applicants “to pretend to cry, break down or to ask for a break in order to appear more sympathetic” and gain asylum status.
The release of the video has generated controversy around the world but especially in Greece, which is on the front lines of the migrant crisis as a landing point for countless migrants hoping to gain asylum in other parts of Europe.
Dozens of migrant and refugee advocacy and legal groups operate in the United States. While no officials with these groups have been exposed for coaching illegal immigrants to lie to U.S. authorities, there can be no doubt that this type of behavior goes on regularly all along the U.S. border with Mexico.
John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.
Globalist Mouthpieces Suggest New World Order Police Force
Given President Trump’s America-first policies, Europe must now assume the role of world policeman in order to make the world “safe for democracy,” claim the globalists.
By Mark Anderson
A just-released essay, “The Committee to Save the World Order: America’s Allies Must Step Up as America Steps Down,” in Foreign Affairs, the flagship journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), contains a proposal for a new economic and political grouping to fill the world-leadership “throne” being vacated by President Donald Trump due to his America-first emphasis.
Penned by CFR fellow James M. Lindsay and Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA) President and former U.S. Envoy to NATO Ivo H. Daalder, the essay meanders through various arguments that Trump and his America-first credo are poisonous to “the rules-based order” that rose under President Truman after World War II, while suggesting strategies to counter the Trump phenomenon. The essay’s centerpiece is the formation of Daalder and Lindsay’s proposed “G-9”
The article begins: “Trump’s hostility toward the United States’ own geopolitical invention [the rules-based order] has shocked many of Washington’s friends and allies. Their early hopes that he might abandon his campaign rhetoric once in office and embrace a more traditional foreign policy have been dashed.”
The “more traditional foreign policy” that these policy wonks believe is fading is not America’s historical tradition at its founding, but a new “tradition” invented by these trans-nationalists, who have prodded desperate war-torn nations with few options into post-war alliances and trade regimes friendly to boundless corporate profiteering and hegemony and increasingly centralized economic and political controls.
The real American tradition calls for trade and friendly relations among nation states, but entangling alliances with none. The world establishment that has forced itself upon the peoples of the Earth literally subsists on entangling alliances, where citizens from whatever nation must look beyond their home polity and offer up tax dollars to rebuild other nations and, if necessary, put on a helmet and sacrifice their blood, or that of their children, to die for the sacred “collective”—the rules-based world order.
Daalder and Lindsay go on to define their G-9 and its strategy, naming the nations that potentially would participate: “France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the EU in Europe; Australia, Japan, and South Korea in Asia; and Canada in North America are the obvious candidates to supply the leadership that the Trump administration will not. Together, they represent the largest economic power in the world, and their collective military capabilities are surpassed only by those of the United States.”
They then volunteer these countries to pony up more for military spending, adding, “They will have to go further, increasing military cooperation and defense spending and using a variety of tools at their disposal to take over the U.S. role as the defender and promoter of democracy, freedom, and human rights across the globe.”
Then, these comrades reveal their hand even more, writing as they do for an organization like the CFR that has many current and former media moguls, editors, and writers as members, even while the orthodox press omits reporting on the CFR:
The United States’ friends and allies—with the G-9 countries in the lead—need to act more ambitiously. They must focus less on how to work with Washington and more on how to work without it—and, if necessary, around it. As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told a Japanese audience in Tokyo last July, “If we pool our strengths . . . we can become something like ‘rule shapers,’ who design and drive an international order that the world urgently needs.”
The global cities movement is going full-bore, which is all-the-more notable given these clear signs that what the proposed G-9 may do from the top down to save globalism, the global cities movement will do from the bottom up. The Global Parliament of Mayors just held its annual summit Oct. 21-23 in Bristol, UK, even while other relevant programs were held, such as the CCGA’s Oct. 25 program, “The Empty Throne: U.S. Abdication of Global Leadership,” based on a book of the same title cowritten, not surprisingly, by Daalder and Lindsay.
The interplay of the G-9 proposal and the global cities scheme is a textbook example of how these unelected policy wonks play their “game of thrones” and reconfigure our cities and other tiers of governance to preserve, defend, and advance their self-serving power grid—operating as it does under a monopoly of credit in a debt-based money system, which is the apex of their pyramid of power. Onward they march, without a vote cast and under an almost total media blackout.
Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at email@example.com.
Mainstream Media Dismisses QAnon
Allegations of an insider (or insiders) working against the Deep State have inspired strong reactions and dismissive theories in the mainstream media as well as deep debate and division within the alternative media.
By Donald Jeffries
It seemingly began with President Donald Trump’s reference at an Oct. 5, 2017 military dinner to “the calm before the storm.” When a reporter asked, “What storm?” Trump replied, “You’ll find out.” Was Trump referring to the so-called QAnon conspiracy, which has been dubbed “the storm”? He didn’t say that, but the steady release of inside information has led some to believe that an anonymous patriot or group of patriots is working deep inside the federal government behind the scenes to root out the systemic corruption everywhere is enticing.
American Free Press detailed QAnon in a front-page article in the Sept. 24 & Oct.1 issue. Since then, there has been much talk of this conspiracy.
The entire mainstream media, from The New York Times and every television network in America to the BBC in England has predictably dismissed it. Huffington Post declared “QAnon isn’t even faintly plausible.” Daily Beast called it “the craziest theory of the Trump era.” The Washington Post said, “QAnon is terrifying,” and smeared supporters for swallowing “grotesque imaginings.” In another Post story, one of the establishment’s favorite newspapers attributed the Q phenomenon to “a twisted sort of optimism.”
Many awake Americans were stirred by Q quotes such as, “Nobody can possibly imagine the pure evil and corruption out there.” Q basically reiterated the old Firesign Theater comment, “Everything you know is wrong,” with, “All that you know to be right is wrong.” Q has noted that the Federal Reserve is privately owned and has mentioned “Pizzagate”—a supposed vast conspiracy of human trafficking, which often includes children, that was exposed when top-level Democrats’ emails were leaked to the public. Q has also alleged that Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered by MS-13 gang members, under orders from former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
One of the most intriguing parts of the Q phenomenon is the extensive list of child trafficking arrests by the Trump administration, a point that Q stresses repeatedly. There is also the promise of mass arrests of high-profile Deep State villains, with Hillary “Lock her up” Clinton in the forefront. Q claims that Robert Mueller and Trump are actually working together to bring down the Deep State. Q also explains Trump’s series of baffling insider nominations to his cabinet as a complex chess move. Under this theory, Trump is assembling a collection of seeming swamp creatures who privately wish to end the corruption. Alternately, some simply attribute this curious strategy to the old adage, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
The world of alternative media is divided on the Q issue. Conservative writer Laura Loomer tweets out Q’s mantra to “trust the plan.” Rosanne Barr is one of Q’s biggest supporters. Former Major League Baseball pitcher Curt Schilling shared one of the more radical videos about QAnon, which included allegations about the oft-referenced pedophile rings.
Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi initially supported QAnon but in recent months have joined others in concluding that Q had been “compromised.” WikiLeaks accused QAnon of “leading anti-establishment Trump voters to embrace regime change and neoconservatism.”
While some in the alternative media world labeled Q as disinformation, Time magazine named the anonymous insider as one of the 25 Most Influential People on the Internet. Sean Spicer, Trump’s former press secretary, publicly stated that Q was not legitimate, but Trump took a photo with leading QAnon promoter and talk show host William “Lionel” Lebron in the White House in August 2018.
Dustin Nemos is a popular podcaster who has studied QAnon closely. He told this writer, “In classic POTUS style, Q is Trump’s disclosure project for the shadow war going on with the Deep State. It brings together foreknowledge of events, classified insider’s direction, regular proof that he’s working directly with Trump, and the Socratic method to fuel the world’s largest open-source volunteer investigation ever seen in our history. The information uncovered is undeniable; the fruit of the tree is good. And not only has Team Q organized a counterforce to the fake news, they’ve also created a galvanized band of brothers, digital truth warriors for the modern era of deception.”
Signs and t-shirts proclaiming “We are Q” are seen at Trump rallies. Others repeat Q’s primary catchphrase, “Where we go one, we go all.” They speak of following the rabbit down this new and deep rabbit hole. While many have speculated about Q’s specific identity, the latest and most interesting theory holds that Q is actually John F. Kennedy Jr., who faked his own death in 1999.
While many point to Q’s predictions that haven’t yet come true, few contrast this with the intelligence world’s long history of inaccurate foresight or the entire establishment’s cocksure proclamation that Mrs. Clinton would be elected president.
Whoever he is, QAnon commands attention and ignites public debate.
Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold at the AFP Online Store.
Fake News Water Boy for the Deep State
Watergate “hero” Bob Woodward has always relied on dubious investigative tactics…
Publisher Simon & Schuster reported that Bob Woodward’s newest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, sold over 750,000 copies on its first day in print. Woodward skeptics and Watergate revisionists still question Woodward’s monarchical hold on modern journalism and publishing. In this issue, S.T. Patrick begins a series that will spotlight the questionable tactics and little-known fallacies of Bob Woodward’s journalistic career.
Series by S.T. Patrick
Implicit in the “Note to Readers” that opens Bob Woodward’s newest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, is an act of faith. Woodward wants the reader to trust him. “Interviews for this book were conducted under the journalistic ground rule of ‘deep background,’ ” Woodward writes.
Woodward, now an associate editor with The Washington Post, then defines “deep background.” He can use all information gathered from “hundreds of hours of interviews” with “firsthand participants and witnesses” whose names you’ll never know. In case the reader questions his accuracy in repeating these quotations and stories, Woodward then informs the public that “nearly all” of the interview participants have allowed him to record the conversations “so the story could be told with more precision.”
It is not clear how many interviews were actually conducted, nor is the specific percentage of recordings referred to as “nearly all.” This is important, because there is no evidence accompanying those unrecorded interviews. The interviewee would surely deny them, and the accuracy of such reports hinges on the reporter’s own trustworthiness. This is but one of the many problems with “deep background,” a journalistic information magnet strategy Woodward popularized during the Watergate era. Today, every interviewee for Fear is a Deep Throat.
Even when attributing exact quotations, Woodward admits that they may come from the person being quoted, but they may also stem from a colleague with direct knowledge or from someone’s meeting notes. But not all meeting notes are created equal, and because we do not know the source in many of these instances, we cannot question the motivations or backgrounds or prior relationships of the source attributing the quote, thought, or conclusion. Therefore, even the attributions are a cloudy haze of journalistic cloak-and-dagger games that Woodward mastered and legitimized to push his narratives to notable and profitable heights.
Fear is Woodward’s 19th book. His fame came from his Watergate reporting with co-author and fellow Washington Post journalist Carl Bernstein. That’s the story we are supposed to believe: It was the stellar work of a muckraking journalist that made him famous. The little guys hustled to bring down the Big Bad Wolves of Pennsylvania Avenue—the Nixon White House. All the President’s Men was released in 1974 and all the American stereotypes applied two years before the nation’s bicentennial: that hard work eventually triumphs, that good wins over evil, that David really can slay Goliath, and that the new Mr. Smiths going to Washington to speak truth to power are the journalists who work tirelessly to assure that truth reigns.
The problem with that red, white, and blue myth is that it was the stuff of Hollywood—literally. Woodward and Bernstein did not commit to writing All the President’s Men until actor Robert Redford had expressed interest in purchasing the film rights. In Telling the Truth About Lies: The Making of All the President’s Men, Woodward also noted that Redford urged “Woodstein” to change the narrative from a tale of Nixonian dirty deeds to one that was based on the journey of two journalists, Woodward and Bernstein. Redford would play the role of Woodward and Dustin Hoffman would play Bernstein. The film was nominated for Best Picture in 1976 but lost to “Rocky.” For Woodward and Bernstein, however, their careers were made. Redford and Hoffman perfectly portrayed everything Americans wanted their journalists to be, down to being sloppy dressers, coffee inhalers, and chain smokers. Most importantly, they were heroes.
The film adaptation of Woodward and Bernstein’s first book coincided with the release of their second Nixon-era exposé, The Final Days. This book was different only in that its heroes were former and current military men, frustratingly skirting protocol and even law solely in an effort to save the republic from a president who had become unhinged. More than in All the President’s Men, Woodward’s pattern of assessing presidencies would begin in The Final Days.
The hero of The Final Days was Gen. Alexander Haig, retired from the Army and someone who had climbed the national security ranks to become chief of staff after the resignation of H.R. Haldeman. After Woodward and Bernstein, the hero of All the President’s Men had been Woodward’s “deep background” source, Deep Throat. Though Woodward revealed—or at least informed us—in 2005 that Deep Throat was FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, Watergate revisionists knew more about the real Bob Woodward than the mainstream media was portraying and had good reasons to question the trustworthiness of Felt as the lone, chief or majority source behind the revelations attributed to Deep Throat.
Woodward had his own secret origin, and it was one that would alter the way keen students of history and the Watergate era viewed his faux heroism, his journalistic methods, the role of Haig, and the character of Deep Throat.
Part I of this series was originally published in American Free Press Issue 39 & 40, Sept. 24 and Oct. 1, 2018.
Bob Woodward: The King Breaker?
As of mid-October 2018, Bob Woodward’s newest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, stands atop The New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover non-fiction. Woodward skeptics and Watergate revisionists still question Woodward’s monarchical hold on modern journalism and publishing. In this issue, corresponding editor S.T. Patrick continues with Part 2 in a series that will spotlight the questionable tactics and little-known fallacies of Bob Woodward’s journalistic career.
On March 6, 1989, would-be authors Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin sat with The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward in preparation for what would be their upcoming book Silent Coup: The Removal of a President (1991). Woodward and co-author Carl Bernstein had written what establishment historians and educators considered the two books of record on the end of Richard Nixon’s presidency: All the President’s Men (1974) and The Final Days (1976). Both would be made into films. On this day, however, Colodny and Gettlin had confirmed information that would turn the Watergate story—and Woodward’s role in it—on its head.
Woodward verified that he had worked at the Pentagon as a communications officer. This was already in contrast with the book and film notion of Woodward as a bottom-rung hoofer who was fighting his way up the journalistic ladder at the Post. The film created the legend that all Woodward had done was to write about the lack of cleanliness in local restaurants. When the editors debated the oncoming storm of Watergate reporting, it was in an effort to decide if Woodward was even qualified to write such a consequential story. In reality, he was, and the editors knew it.
Woodward denied to Gettlin that he had any other function at the Pentagon beyond having once been a communications watch officer. Gettlin then asked if Woodward had ever done “any briefings of people.”
“Never! . . . And I defy you to produce somebody who says I did a briefing. It’s just . . . It’s not true,” Woodward responded.
The conversation turned to Gen. Alexander Haig, who had become Nixon’s chief of staff upon the urged resignation of H.R. Haldeman. Tim Weiner, upon Haig’s death in 2010, wrote in The New York Times that Haig had been the “acting president” while Nixon was pre-occupied with Watergate. Haig biographer Roger Morris wrote that President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon was a de facto pardon of Haig, as well.
Haig had played an important role in the transition from Nixon to Ford and had even been one of the most instrumental voices privately encouraging Nixon’s resignation. If Haig had a previous working relationship with Woodward, and if Woodward’s stories were contradictory to the Nixon administration’s best interests, then the relationship and roles of both Woodward and Haig in relation to Nixon’s fall demanded examination.
“I never met or talked to Haig until some time in the spring of 1973,” Woodward responded. That Woodward had never done briefings, had never been a briefing officer, and had never met Haig until 1973 were ideas that sources “in a position to know,” as Gettlin called them in the interview, contradicted.
Lest someone assume that Colodny and Gettlin’s sources on Woodward were journalistic rivals or disenfranchised victims made unemployable by Watergate’s political aftermath, they were not. And unlike Woodward’s most notable sources, they were not kept hidden under “deep background.” Colodny and Gettlin’s confirmation came from Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, Melvin Laird, and Jerry Friedheim, all of whom can be read and heard on “Watergate.com.”
Moorer, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1970-1974), told Gettlin that he was aware that Haig was being briefed by Woodward. Moorer was in close contact, sometimes “on the telephone with Haig eight or nine times a day.”
Laird, Nixon’s secretary of defense, said, “I was aware that Haig was being briefed by Woodward. . . . He was there on a temporary assignment.” This was while Woodward was working in communications at the Pentagon.
Friedheim, a Pentagon spokesperson, elaborated on Woodward’s Pentagon associations in the pre-Watergate era. “He was definitely there, and he was moving in circles with—you know—as a junior officer, as a briefer, but obviously it’s somebody that they thought was sharp enough to do those things,” Friedheim said. “He was moving with those guys, Moorer, Haig, the NSC [National Security Council] staff, and other military types.”
Colodny and Gettlin were not the first, nor were they the last, to tie Haig to the role of Woodward’s most famous Watergate source, “Deep Throat.” In his 1984 book Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA, Jim Hougan wrote that Haig was the “ ‘prominent official’ within the Nixon administration who most closely fits Woodward’s description of his source.” There are Watergate historians who still believe that Deep Throat was a composite of sources, with Haig being chief among them, or someone other than the FBI’s second in command, Mark Felt.
The release of Secret Agenda was a new starting point for Watergate skeptics in 1984; Silent Coup reorganized them once again in 1991. Author Ray Locker will continue to question Woodward’s links to the Nixon White House in 2019’s Haig’s Coup.
Woodward, exasperated by the questioning of Colodny and Gettlin further in the 1989 interview, referenced the briefing revelation and the Haig tie as a “totally erroneous story . . . that I briefed somebody in the Pentagon . . . and that there’s this coup going on.” He had yet to learn that no less than Moorer, Laird, and Friedman had all openly established a Woodward link to Haig.
He would also repeatedly ask about the nature of the interviewer’s sources, about whom Colodny and Gettlin then vaguely referred. It seems that Woodward was perturbed to be the target of yet-unnamed sources who verified information and scenes in which he was involved. He had popularized the practice and allowed its subjects to deal with the consequences. But Hougan, Colodny, Gettlin, and Locker have since put that translucent lens back on Woodward.
Part II of this series was originally published in American Free Press Issue 41 & 42, Oct. 8 and 15, 2018.
Bob Woodward’s Tarnished Legacy – Part III
S.T. Patrick continues his series on Woodward and his monarchical hold on modern journalism by profiling The Washington Post associate editor’s work throughout the 1980s. This is the third installment in the series.
Though the Republican Party seemed all but dead after Watergate, the pardon of Richard Nixon, and the 1976 electoral loss of unelected President Gerald Ford to Gov. Jimmy Carter, the Eighties were a new decade, one that would attach the word “era” to the politician that dominated its most crucial moments, Ronald Reagan.
For journalist Bob Woodward, the fall of the GOP had made him a legend. The rise of the Reagan era, however, would prove that legends are highly fallible, even in the world of journalism, where kings are rarely dethroned.
In September 1980, reporter Janet Cooke wrote an incredibly moving and emotional piece for the Post entitled “Jimmy’s World.” Cooke detailed the heartbreaking story of an eight-year-old heroin addict. So captivating was the story that Woodward, then the Post’s assistant managing editor, nominated it for a Pulitzer Prize. In April 1981, it won. Cooke would later have to return the Pulitzer when it was revealed that the story had been a fabrication. Rather than making an apology, Woodward defended the merits of the story and removed himself from any responsibility for the nomination.
In 1984, taking a brief respite from political tomes, Woodward released Wired: The Short Life & Fast Times of John Belushi. Both Woodward and Belushi had been raised in Wheaton, Ill. Riding the wave of notoriety he had amassed after Robert Redford’s portrayal of him in “All the President’s Men,” Woodward convinced Belushi’s friend Dan Aykroyd, brother James Belushi, widow Judith Belushi Pisano, actress Blair Brown, and others to sit for interviews in preparation. For those who had known and worked alongside him, the memories of Belushi, who had died of a drug overdose in 1982, were fresh.
When Wired was released, Belushi’s friends, family, and co-stars felt betrayed. Because Belushi had disliked Nixon and had liked Woodward’s work, his widow had turned to the Post editor and bestselling author when she had questions about the LAPD’s handling of the death. What Woodward did was to take the story and create a very critical, drug-fueled, exaggerated narrative of Belushi’s stardom.
Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987 marked Woodward’s return to home base, the world of D.C. politics. Having roundly suffered what he believed was unfair criticism for Wired, Woodward may have thought his political wheelhouse would harbor a safe return to the accolades and fame of a decade before.
Veil includes one of the most hotly debated scenes ever written by Woodward. In it, former CIA director William Casey lies near-death in a hospital bed at Georgetown University Hospital.
Woodward makes his way into the room and asks Casey if he had known about the illegal diversion of profits from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan Contras. Casey’s head “jerked up hard. He stared and finally nodded yes,” Woodward wrote.
“Why?” Woodward puzzlingly asked. Casey paused and whispered, “I believed.”
Kevin Shipp, a former member of Casey’s own security detail, wrote that none of the agents standing guard would have allowed Woodward into the room. He also noted that the former CIA director was not able to speak at the time of Woodward’s Q&A. Casey’s daughter, Bernadette Casey Smith, told the Houston Chronicle that Woodward “never got the deathbed confession.”
While the Casey story seems clearly like fantasy, The New Yorker’s John Cassidy, in describing both Veil and other Woodward work, discussed his faults in a more muted, yet specific way. “The real rap on Woodward isn’t that he makes things up,” Cassidy wrote. “It’s that he takes what powerful people tell him at face value; that his accounts are shaped by who cooperates with him and who doesn’t; and that they lack context, critical awareness, and, ultimately, historic meaning.”
The Nineties would bring a return to Watergate and, for Woodward, a kinder, gentler Democratic administration. But in the new millennium, 9/11, multiple wars, and the George W. Bush administration would be just the combatant-like foes that Woodward would need to rebuild a legacy he had self-tarnished in the 1980s and failed to recover in the 1990s.
Part III was published in American Free Press Issue 43 & 44, October 22 and 29, 2018.
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.
Russia Won’t Kowtow to Israel, U.S.
Putin has given Syria advanced anti-missile technology capable of shooting down Israeli aircraft, despite protests from Tel Aviv and D.C., and Turkey has signed a deal to purchase updated Russian missiles.
By Richard Walker
Russia has shown it will not allow Tel Aviv and Washington to determine who gets its advanced missile systems, probably the world’s most potent in destroying enemy planes and missiles at distances not achieved by competing NATO systems.
Much to the anger of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia has supplied Syria’s military with upgraded versions of the S-300 capable of shooting down Israeli aircraft. The move upset Netanyahu’s friends in Washington and came in the wake of a Russian plane being shot down over Syria after it was mistaken for an Israeli fighter that was illegally operating in Syrian airspace.
Russia had an arrangement with Israel that it would give notice if it intended to send fighters or bombers to attack targets in Syria, but Israel broke the deal.
Israel has also had to sit by as Iran has deployed the S-300 system despite opposition from Washington.
In a further sign that Russia was not going to be restricted in the sale of its missile systems, in July 2018, Turkey, much to NATO’s consternation, signed a deal with Russia to buy its upgraded S-400 missiles. The Turks responded to criticism of the move, pointing out that for 10 years they had been trying to buy a missile shield from allies, meaning the U.S., and had been turned down.
What worries NATO’s chief is that the S-400 will not integrate with NATO’s missile shield, which includes the U.S. Patriot system. More importantly, Turkey is due to take possession of a consignment of F-35s, America’s most lethal attack aircraft. Security experts fear this will give Turkey the opportunity to test the Russian systems against the capabilities of the F-35. It might enable Russia and other nations with the S-300s and S-400s to make adjustments to them so they will be more effective against F-35s presently being used by the Israeli Air Force.
Quite simply, if Turkish technicians linked the computers in an S-400 battery to the F-35’s sensors, they could pull out data, allowing them to observe how the F-35 evades radar of the kind used by S-300s and S-400s.
China has recognized the value of deploying the S-400 because of its range, which is twice the range of the U.S. Patriot system. It will likely position its S-400s in the South China Sea for use in any eventual clash with the U.S. Navy and Air Force. While the S-400 is often defined as a defensive missile shield, it offers an offensive capability, permitting it to identify and eliminate stationary targets at 200 miles. Its radar has a surface surveillance capability of 350 miles. The Patriot’s strike range is less than half that of the S-400, and its radar does not reach anywhere near the 350-mile mark.
Just when it seemed that the spread of the S-400 had ended with China making a $2.5 billion purchase of it, India stepped in on Sept. 28 with $5.4 billion to ink a deal with Moscow for five S-400 batteries with 40 launchers and 1,000 missiles. The announcement of the move by New Delhi angered Washington and drew a swift response from President Donald Trump that India would “find out sooner than you think” about his response.
Russia was quick to point out that it would not be dictated to by Washington. The Russian ambassador to India, Nickolay Kudashev, said, responding to Trump, “India is much too large to depend or be afraid of somebody.” He also hinted that more deals with India were in the pipeline.
Amit Cowshish, a former financial advisor to India’s Ministry of Defense, told Sputnik News that any sanctions by Washington against India would be a setback to developing U.S.-India relations. Without spelling it out, he was warning Washington that its hopes of having India as an ally should war break out in the South China Sea would be dashed, as would India’s cooperation with Washington over security in the Indian Ocean.
While there is much talk of the S-400 system, those looking for a more potent missile system are eyeing the S500, which China and India are likely to purchase. It has the capability to take down military satellites in space, as well as act as a shield against ballistic missiles.
In Western defense circles there are critics who feel that threatening Russia and countries that buy weapons from it is a sign of Washington’s weakness because it cannot control an arms industry in which it is only one of the major players. At least in missile design, it appears Russia has the edge.
Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.
Inside the World of ‘Paid Protesters’
The idea of “paid protesters” is no longer some crazy conspiracy theory. A company that supplies “protesters for hire” has been sued for $23 million by a Czech businessman being harassed and defamed via an extortion campaign.
By John Friend
Once marginalized as a fringe conspiracy theory, the idea of paid protesters and “astroturfing”—artificially manufacturing ostensible grassroots support for a political agenda by concealing the sponsors and financiers of a political message or organization—are increasingly becoming a permanent fixture of the American political experience.
There are numerous private companies in operation in America today that will literally recruit and hire protesters to participate in a political protest, for example, or attend a political rally. One such company, Crowds on Demand, has brought this issue to the forefront after recently being sued by a wealthy Czech investor and businessman, Zdenek Bakala, for allegedly engaging in an extortion campaign at the behest of another rival Czech businessman.
Crowds on Demand, a public relations company based in Beverly Hills, California founded in October 2012 to “revolutionize the ‘people’ business,” specializes in recruiting and hiring paid protesters and other advocates to promote and advance political agendas.
“Are you looking to create a buzz anywhere in the United States?” the company’s website reads. “At Crowds on Demand, we provide our clients with protests, rallies, flash-mobs, paparazzi events, and other inventive PR stunts. These services are available across the country in every major U.S. city, every major U.S. metro area, and even most smaller cities as well.”
Crowds on Demand boasts that it can “provide everything including the people, the materials and even the ideas” for any given protest or publicity stunt and will help create a “strategic plan of action” for clients. In addition to manufacturing political stunts and rallies, Crowds on Demand also organizes celebrity and corporate events, according to its website.
Bakala’s recent lawsuit against Crowds on Demand, highlighted by an excellent and highly detailed investigative report published by The Sacramento Bee, alleges that the company was hired by Pavel Krupa, a rival Czech businessman and financier, to organize protests outside Bakala’s home in South Carolina. Bakala also alleges that Krupa and Crowds on Demand have worked together to organize a public relations campaign to have Bakala ousted from advisory boards of two prestigious organizations he has served with for years: the Aspen Institute and Dartmouth College. Bakala has further alleged that Krupa, working with Crowds on Demand, has demanded Bakala pay $23 million to end the smear campaign, which essentially amounts to extortion.
“Defendants are pursuing a campaign of harassment, defamation, and interference in the business affairs of Zdenek Bakala, which they have expressly vowed to expand unless he pays them millions of dollars,” Bakala’s lawyers state in their suit.
Crowds on Demand and its founder, Adam Swart, have declined to answer specific questions about their partnership with Krupa or their campaign being waged against Bakala. Swart, however, did call the claims made in Bakala’s lawsuit meritless.
“Not only will I vigorously defend myself against the allegations in the complaint, but I am also evaluating whether to bring my own claims against Mr. Bakala,” Swart told the Bee in a statement provided via email.
Edward Walker, a sociology professor at UCLA and author of the book Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs Consultants in American Democracy, has studied extensively public relations firms like Crowds on Demand and the increasingly prominent role they are playing in American society.
“There are hundreds of lobbying firms and public affairs firms that do this work, though not all in the same way,” Walker told the Bee. “Some only do a little bit of this grass-roots-for-hire, but things adjacent to this are not uncommon.”
Not only are Americans having to deal with the reality of fake news and systematic disinformation campaigns, they are increasingly having to deal with paid protesters and organized astroturfing campaigns to artificially advance political agendas.
John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.
The Rise and Fall of Bill Cooper
A new book about Bill Cooper, radio show host and author of Behold a Pale Horse, examines the wide appeal and demise of this popular conspiracy theorist who died in 2001.
By S.T. Patrick
Behold a Pale Horse is a miracle story in independent publishing. This haphazardly compiled book of personal tales, documents, newspaper clippings, facsimiles, reports, interviews, pamphlets, and transcripts has sold over 300,000 copies since 2005. Its organizer, Milton William (Bill) Cooper, lived no such miracle. Gunned down on his front porch on Nov. 6, 2001, his dubious rise and fall resembled a fictional suspense story more than Shakespearean tragedy.
The genius, intentional or not, of Behold a Pale Horse is its senseless organization. It reads like an underground set of documents that your security clearance is not advanced enough to access. Yet, you have them in hand and the world, the real world, is now open to you—maybe for the first time. That also explains the book’s widespread popularity among prison populations.
It is a classic within prisons, and it isn’t hard to understand the reasons that make this so. Prisoners naturally feel cheated, as if they have been victims of systemic racism, for-profit internment, and laws aimed at keeping the economically disadvantaged permanently downtrodden. Cooper named the cheaters, however, which accounts for its appeal.
Author Mark Jacobson’s newest book, Pale Horse Rider: William Cooper, the Rise of Conspiracy, and the Fall of Trust in America, is an energetic, wonderfully written, even-handed look at the life, mind, and work of Cooper. Jacobson is a keen cultural observer and chronicler of urban life. His journalism was the basis for the film “American Gangster” and the television series “Taxi.” He looks at Cooper not as another boastful conspiracist, which he was, but as something more complex and more unique. Cooper offered something street-corner peddlers and billion-dollar news organizations did not.
“In contrast to the orthodoxies of so-called ‘Truth’ movements, as well the divide-and-conquer techniques of the mass media propaganda cults like MSNBC and Fox News, Cooper offered an individualized, auto-didactic path to knowledge,” Jacobson wrote in an essay for Publishers Weekly. “It was in the ‘standard admonition,’ his challenge (which all fans know by heart) ‘to read everything, listen to everyone, but believe nothing until you can prove it with your own research.’ ”
Cooper believed many things, and he would regale audiences with his stories, lectures, and explanations on the shortwave radio program “The Hour of the Time,” which he hosted from 1993 until 2001. While he could be appreciably prescient, his theories often tiptoed along the border of fringe.
He claimed that on Feb. 21, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower met with the Pleiadian star system ambassador O.H. Krill to forge an alien abduction agreement that would allow human abductions by extraterrestrials in exchange for advanced weaponry that would keep the U.S. ahead of the Soviets in the growing arms race of the Cold War.
Cooper also popularized the theory that limousine driver William Greer was the true assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
One of the bombshells of Behold a Pale Horse, Cooper claims to have been on a mission that allowed him to access a top-secret vault. Within the vault, Cooper found an Office of Naval Intelligence report that stated Greer had indeed shot the president. At his public lectures, he would hawk fifth-generation copies of the Zapruder film which “proved” the theory.
Cooper’s version of the assassination convinced another Arizona-based researcher and author, Ralph Epperson, who had done a series of interviews on Cooper’s program and had written the landmark The Unseen Hand: An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History. The theory has since been chided and discarded by the vast majority of Kennedy assassination researchers.
Part of the appeal Cooper had with the African-American community resided with his belief that both the dissemination of drugs into the inner cities and the proliferation of the AIDS virus were intentional intelligence operations aimed at blacks, homosexuals, and Hispanics. A cure for AIDS, according to Cooper, was created before the plan to decrease minority populations was implemented. In 2000, South Africa’s minister of health distributed the corresponding chapter from Behold a Pale Horse to senior government officials and friends. This was part of Cooper’s contradiction and also a reason why he remains difficult to pigeonhole as forcing one specific ideology serving one audience of extremists.
A recent Rolling Stone magazine piece called him “the Granddaddy of American Conspiracy Theorists,” but he has also been dismissively labeled the “Titan of the Tin Foil Hats” and derided as a “militia theoretician.” That Cooper strongly appealed to those on the far right of the American political spectrum is undeniable, but what cannot be discounted or excused as frivolous is that he also inspired modern rap music by the likes of popular stars such as Tupac Shakur, Busta Rhymes, and the Wu-Tang Clan.
Cooper’s program was enlightening for those who had only read local newspapers or had watched mainstream news. For the first time, a listener could hear about the power of the Bilderberg Group, the history of the Illuminati, the establishment of the New World Order, the murder of James Forrestal, the Majestic-12 papers, or the plan to create an alien invasion hoax as a way to establish martial law and complete control over the people of the world. What the journalistic establishment still chuckles away as crazed ramblings, however, turned very real on Cooper’s June 28, 2001 episode.
Cooper predicted that a major attack would soon befall the United States. It would be a path to bigger government, more surveillance, militarization of police, and an expansion of FEMA. These were familiar talking points for Cooper. Then came the eerie specifics. The intelligence services had been eluded by an Islamic extremist named Osama bin Laden for years, yet CNN had just interviewed him.
“But some doofus reporter with his little camera crew waltzes right into his secret hideout and interviews him!” Cooper exclaimed to his audience. “Something terrible is going to happen in this country. And whatever is going to happen, they’re going to blame on Osama bin Laden. Don’t you even believe it!”
Two-and-a-half months later, 9/11 forever changed American history.
Cooper soon after also prophesied his own demise. The authorities were going to make their way to his rural Arizona home “in the middle of the night and shoot me dead on my doorstep.”
At around midnight, on Nov. 6, 2001, Apache County Sheriff’s deputies attempted to arrest Cooper at his Eagar, Ariz., home. After an explosion of gunfire, Cooper was dead on his doorstep.
Revelation 6:8 is the Bible verse from which Cooper’s most famous work drew its name. It reads, “And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and the name that sat upon him was Death.” Cooper was dead at 58.
Jacobson’s Pale Horse Rider is the eulogy that Cooper deserved. Sourced from Cooper’s friends, family, adversaries, admirers, and detractors, it is the best example yet of being fair to controversy.
Last year, Cooper’s Behold a Pale Horse rose as high as number 17 on Amazon.com. States such as Florida have banned the book as an inflammatory work in their prison systems, yet its presence remains widespread.
In 1971, songwriter Kris Kristofferson released a song he had written for his most complicated friends. The chorus of “The Pilgrim, Chapter 33” can also describe a character such as Cooper: “He’s a poet, he’s a picker. He’s a prophet, he’s a pusher. He’s a pilgrim and a preacher, and a problem when he’s stoned. He’s a walkin’ contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction, takin’ ev’ry wrong direction on his lonely way back home.”
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. He is also an occasional contributor to The Barnes Review(TBR) history magazine. For a sample copy of TBR, please call 202-547-5586.
Ruling Against Monsanto Upheld
An appeals court has rejected Bayer AG’s argument that the original trial jury lacked a basis to conclude that subsidiary Monsanto’s RoundUp weed killer caused Dewayne Johnson’s cancer. While, the judge also ruled to dramatically reduce the punitive damages against Bayer, the decision could open up the agri-giant to more suits.
By Mark Anderson
The ruling by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos to reject the arguments of drug giant Bayer AG and let stand a ruling in favor of ex-groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson—who developed severe cancer from exposure to Roundup, the infamous weed-killing product—has the potential to open the floodgates against certain corporate interests that for way too long have been predominant, especially in the U.S.
“This ruling opens Bayer to considerably higher damages as thousands of plaintiffs across the country have made similar legal claims, alleging that glyphosate [the herbicide in Roundup] exposure caused their cancer or resulted in the deaths of their loved ones,” the alternative news website “Zero Hedge” noted.
In a statement at the time of the initial ruling in Johnson’s favor, his attorney, Brent Wisner, remarked that the verdict sent a “message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup [are] over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits.”
Germany-based Bayer AG purchased Monsanto for $63 million in June. In turning down Bayer AG’s appeal of the verdict, Bolanos rejected the company’s argument that the jury lacked a basis to conclude that the herbicide caused Johnson’s cancer. The twist, however, is that Judge Bolanos also ruled to dramatically reduce the punitive damages against Bayer—from the initial ruling of $289 million down to $39 million, while noting that if Johnson did not accept the lower punitive damages, she may order a new trial.
“The punitive damages award must be constitutionally reduced to the maximum allowed by due process in this case—$39,253,209.35—equal to the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury based on its findings of harm to the plaintiff,” she explained.
Because of the advanced state of Johnson’s Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a lymphatic cancer shown to have been caused by his exposure to both Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate-based herbicide, his physicians didn’t think he’d live long enough to see the verdict. But he held on to see a San Francisco jury award him a total of $289 million in overall damages.
That initial award consisted of nearly $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. But with punitive and compensatory damages each reduced to just over $39 million, Johnson and his lawyers will end up getting about $80 million instead of $289 million. Still, this represents a major victory against a corporate colossus that is one of the most despised companies in the world.
“[The] decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews—and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world—support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge claimed in a statement.
Johnson believes his case will have long-term outcomes, including new restrictions and labeling for the herbicide. “I hope [Monsanto] gets the message that people in America and across the world are not ignorant. They have already done their own research. I’m hoping that it snow-balls and people really get the picture and they start to make decisions about what they eat [and] what they spray in their farms.”
Based on that statement, it’s worth adding that glyphosate worms its way into many common cereals—just one example, among many, of how the herbicide can be ingested besides being exposed to it through grounds-keeping work.
According to the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), glyphosate “is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. It is the most commonly used pesticide in parks and is even found in foods that adults and kids love. . . . Is glyphosate hazardous for kids? Absolutely.”
A CEH online summary noted: “Corn and soybeans are commonly grown using Roundup, but it’s also used on hundreds of other crops. Glyphosate is sometimes used to dry out oats just prior to harvest.”
So, beyond celebrating the major corporate pushback that Johnson’s victory represents, it would be wise for the public to ask questions and create or seek out local farms and other trustworthy food sources to minimize or avoid exposure.
Agriculture, by its very nature, should be locally sourced for purposes of proper nutrition, security in the event of civil unrest, and to avoid spoilage and contamination. That commonsense approach can proactively close the avenues through which agri-chemical exposure happens in the first place.
Mark Anderson is a AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at firstname.lastname@example.org.