Radical Leftists Spend Big on Local Elections

By AFP Staff

A new report by The Los Angeles Times sheds light on why globalist slash-and-burn speculator George Soros along with a half-dozen leftist groups is spending millions of dollars on candidates running for district attorneys up and down the state of California. According to the Times, the wealthy left-wing activists want to undercut average voters when it comes to issues like illegal immigration and crime.

Here’s what the Times reported earlier today:

The effort is part of a years-long campaign by liberal groups to reshape the nation’s criminal justice system. New York billionaire George Soros headlines a consortium of private funders, the American Civil Liberties Union and other social justice groups and Democratic activists targeting four of the 56 district attorney positions up for election on June 5. Five other California candidates are receiving lesser support.

Soros-Not Easy Being God
The REAL George Soros – new at the AFP Store!

The Times reported that the donations from the leftist groups, in most cases, surpassed by a significant margin donations coming from local police and citizen groups and businesses that would prefer law and order over policies touted by so-called social justice warriors.

“These people who want to create their own social policy are not worthy of the office,” former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley told the Times. “If they win in San Diego or Sacramento, L.A. is next.”

Soros, who lives in New York and is not a U.S. citizen, has given $1.5 million of his own money to a political action committee in California to fund the campaign of Geneviéve Jones-Wright, who is running for San Diego district attorney. If Ms. Jones-Wright wins, as the city’s top prosecutor she would be more worried about creating a “police misconduct unit” to police the police than in dealing with the illegal immigration problem southern California is facing or gang violence.

Big Media Lies About Nixon, Trump

President Donald Trump’s battles with special counsel Robert Mueller investigation are being compared to President Richard Nixon’s firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre. But recent comparisons between Trump and Nixon are based on historical fallacies promoted by mainstream media and Hollywood.

By S.T. Patrick

Evaluating CNN’s recent coverage of the predictably named “Russiagate” story reminds informed viewers that lazy journalism and bad history can exist, even on the hallowed airwaves of what the mainstream media regrettably defines as the upper echelon of modern news.

In its attempt to compare President Donald Trump’s tensions with special counsel Robert Mueller to Richard Nixon’s October 1973 firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, CNN has enlisted Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to validate its flawed hypothesis. Woodward and Bernstein famously detailed their Watergate era reporting in the 1974 book All the President’s Men.

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman’s likeable big screen portrayals of “Wood-stein” helped carve for The Washington Post darlings a permanent place in the journalistic pantheon of Big Media. Watergate revisionists such as Len Colodny staunchly deny that the Trump-Nixon comparison, as well as Woodward and Bernstein’s role in the original story, are legitimate.

Colodny, the author of Silent Coup: The Removal of a President, has tangled with Woodward and the Watergate story for close to 30 years. Colodny’s work documents a thesis that Watergate was not about a break-in at all. There were break-ins, which Colodny believes were ordered by Nixon’s White House Counsel John Dean, but the real story of Watergate centers on a shadow government set up by Nixon early in his presidency that inadvertently allowed Gen. Alexander Haig to climb the ranks of Nixon appointees. When Nixon became vulnerable as a result of the Watergate break-ins, Haig then ran a shadow government whose primary goal was to oust Nixon.

In a Feb. 10 piece for CNN.com, Woodward and Bernstein called Trump’s battle with Mueller “an eerily similar confrontation” to Nixon’s firing of Cox, now termed the “Saturday Night Massacre.” The constant comparison of Trump to Nixon has become an outlandish obsession. What Americans are getting isn’t Trump; it’s CNN’s Trump. And the Nixon being portrayed isn’t the historical Nixon, either; it’s Woodward and Bernstein’s Nixon.

An example is the opening line of Gloria Borger’s March 3 CNN.com article, “The Great Unraveling: Trump’s Allies Are Really Worried About Him.” Ms. Borger opens the article, writing, “Not since Richard Nixon started talking to portraits on the walls of the West Wing has a president seemed so alone against the world.”

That Nixon is the one portrayed in Woodward and Bernstein’s second book, The Final Days (1976), the story of Nixon’s final year in office. It shows a president that is crazed, neurotic, crying, praying, hyper-paranoid, and frothing with every emphatic syllable.

Borger’s source is simply called “One source—who is a presidential ally.” Woodward popularized the use of an unnamed source, the most famous of which became the euphemistically named Deep Throat. Though Woodward outed FBI Associate Director Mark Felt as Deep Throat in 2005, some researchers still believe he was a composite character.

Others have for decades believed Deep Throat was Haig, who, not so coincidentally, was also the hero of The Final Days. Haig tested the bounds of disloyalty and illegality in ways that Woodward and Bernstein spun as saving the country from a president that had flown off the rails.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Though Woodward told Colodny in 1989 that he had “never met or talked to Haig until sometime in the spring of ’73,” Colodny’s research unearthed a biography that contradicted Woodward’s claim.
Colodny confirmed that Navy Lt. Woodward in 1969 and 1970 manned the Pentagon’s secret communications room. In that position, Woodward often transmitted back channel messages to and from Nixon and Henry Kissinger. During this time, Woodward also delivered messages to Haig, Kissinger’s deputy at the National Security Council.

When Colodny and co-author Robert Gettlin wrote that Woodward had briefed Haig as early as 1969, Woodward fired back. “I defy you to produce somebody who says I did the briefing,” Woodward said. “It’s just, it’s not true.”

Colodny and Gettlin confirmed the Woodward-Haig relationship with two high-level sources, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird and Woodward’s own former commanding officer, Adm. Thomas Moorer, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This is also in direct contrast to how All the President’s Men—the book and the film—portrayed Woodward. He had worked closely with important Nixon administration appointees, despite the film portraying him as a lucky, young reporter whose hard work and shoe-leather muckraking led him to stumble upon the story of the decade.

Bernstein, in his recent CNN appearances, has had even harsher words for Trump. “We have no reason to believe almost anything that Donald Trump says,” Bernstein told CNN. “What is so extraordinary about him and his presidency is the incessant, compulsive, continual lying. . . . We’ve never had a president who lies like this . . . even Nixon.”

Bernstein then reinforced the comparison to Anderson Cooper on “AC360.” In comparing Trump’s rejection of Russian collusion to Nixon’s denials of a Watergate cover-up, Bernstein said, “Ironically enough, you’re dealing with the same allegations in some way.”

With Woodward acting as the smooth scrutinizer and Bernstein as the hit man, CNN has passionately pushed the Trump-Nixon comparison at every turn. Colodny, a self-admitted liberal Democrat, is turned off by it. If Woodward lied about his relationship with Haig, lied about his early ties to Nixon appointees, lied about the complete source list for the Deep Throat information, and lied about giving briefings at the White House, Colodny believes any comparison Woodward and Bernstein make comparing Russiagate to Watergate is both self-serving and inapposite.

In an interview with this writer, Colodny denied that any comparison between the two presidents should be made. However, it may be worth pondering whether there is a valid comparison to be made regarding a more modern Silent Coup thesis itself. Are establishment insiders plotting Trump’s demise with the aiding and abetting of those he trusts? Could Trump’s Haig be a frequent visitor to the West Wing today? And will it take close to 20 years for revisionist researchers to uncover it all?

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as a respected educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News” show. You may email him at STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.

Hearst Kidnapping Was CIA Op

The author of a new book has powerfully countered CNN propaganda, boldly challenging the accepted mainstream version of “the most notorious American kidnapping since the baby of Charles and Anne Lindbergh was taken in 1932.” In doing so, Brad Schreiber exposes how the U.S. undermines dissident groups through revealing the real history of the Symbionese Liberation Army’s kidnapping of media mogul heiress Patty Hearst. 

By S. T. Patrick

Political kidnappings are rare in North America. More common in Latin America, South Asia, and Africa, they are most often used to gain political concessions, commodity control, money, notoriety or a combination of the four. Someone who may be valuable to a wealthy and powerful entity is kidnapped in exchange for something that is of value to the kidnappers.

Patricia (Patty) Campbell Hearst was an heir to the publishing fortune of William Randolph Hearst. She was valuable. The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) and their leader, Donald DeFreeze, wanted to make a statement that would instantly gain them notoriety through the media, a business the Hearsts knew very well.

When Hearst, a sophomore at the University of California-Berkeley, was kidnapped by members of the SLA on Feb. 4, 1974 there was reason to believe the motives were political and monetary. When no ransom demand was given to California authorities, the media began reporting the story as a political kidnapping. It quickly became the most notorious American kidnapping since the baby of Charles and Anne Lindbergh was taken in 1932. As the story unfolded, the characters, events, and history behind the kidnapping became even more bizarre than what was being reported.

In Revolution’s End: The Patty Hearst Kidnapping, Mind Control, and the Secret History of Donald DeFreeze and the SLA, author Brad Schreiber boldly challenges what is still the accepted mainstream version of the story. It is the mainstream version that was featured on CNN’s recent docuseries, “The Radical Story of Patty Hearst.” In challenging the CNN version of the story with documents and archival interviews that have been available since researcher Dick Russell revealed them in 1976, Schreiber is also challenging the work of CNN’s legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, on whose work the CNN series was based.

While Toobin’s work focuses largely on Hearst, Schreiber’s research delves deeper into the history and ideologies of the SLA and DeFreeze, both of which stem from California Gov. Ronald Reagan’s attempts at infiltrating left-wing political groups. California’s infiltration project was led by Reagan’s attorney general, Evelle Younger, as well as the CIA.

Three months before the Hearst kidnapping, the SLA had been responsible for killing Marcus Foster, the first black superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District. The killing baffled journalists and officials. The SLA had come to prominence as a radical left-wing group concerned mainly about the plight of black Americans. The Foster murder created a rift between the SLA and the Black Panthers, which had formed in Oakland in 1966. It is senseless unless you view the rift as an intentionally created one, as Schreiber does.

While DeFreeze was incarcerated at Vacaville Prison, he became associated with the Black Cultural Association (BCA), a group led by UC-Berkeley professor and CIA asset Colston Westbrook. The BCA would bring white, radical students into the prison to help facilitate political and educational discussions with black inmates housed in a wing used and funded by the CIA for mind control and sociological experimentation projects.

It was through the BCA that Hearst first met the incarcerated DeFreeze. Using a fraudulent ID of friend Mary Alice Siem in a time when prison rules were much more lax, she then began sending money to DeFreeze. Hearst and two of Westbrook’s other volunteers, Patricia Soltysik and Nancy Ling Perry, also engaged in sexual activity with DeFreeze while at Vacaville. DeFreeze and other prisoners targeted by Westbrook were placed on heavy doses of medication.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

DeFreeze was offered a deal by the California Department of Corrections and the CIA. He would be released (portrayed as an escape) in exchange for starting a phony left-wing group—the SLA—and working in chaotic opposition to the goals of the Black Panthers and the New Left. Westbrook would serve as the control agent for DeFreeze, who had previously been used as an informant to set up the Black Panthers for the Los Angeles Police Department.

After DeFreeze left prison, he was reunited with Soltysik and Perry, who became SLA members. The group’s spurious origins were known by Westbrook and DeFreeze, but not by its white, radical members.

“None of the core 10 white followers of the SLA ever knew that DeFreeze was working for the state,” Schreiber said in an interview with this writer. “They believed it was a radical group, and they believed in revolution. They thought America was a racist country . . . and they thought that the Vietnam War was an immoral war. They were following a black prisoner . . . and they had no idea he was setting them up. . . . They were following DeFreeze blindly.”

According to Schreiber, the kidnapping of Hearst was undertaken by the SLA because DeFreeze felt abandoned by Hearst and had animus toward her. It was, therefore, a personal kidnapping and was neither political nor random. Schreiber believes that Hearst did not expect the kidnapping, nor did she take a willing part in it.

Aside from DeFreeze, the SLA members treated Hearst well. She was already politically radical. DeFreeze employed the use of drugs, intimidation, and sex with other members to mentally coerce Hearst into participating with the SLA in the Hibernia Bank robbery and other activities.

Schreiber is often indignant at the mainstream’s focus on the Hearst angle in the story. Reagan, Younger, and the CIA bear responsibility for the programs by which false left-wing groups were created in California. One of those groups, the SLA, murdered a school superintendent before engaging in a robbery of a San Francisco bank. In a later shootout with the LAPD, six SLA members were killed.

The focus of the story, to Schreiber, is the infiltration of the left, the corruption of the California Department of Corrections, the murder of school superintendent Foster, and the sad deaths of the group’s committed believers.

Schreiber’s point of view is a reminder that the truth of history can be found through dissecting the story of someone the mainstream media views as a minor character. Schreiber found both the truth and the true tragedy of the story within the biographies of the supposedly extraneous figures that surrounded Patty Hearst in 1974 rather than through biographies of Hearst herself.

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

Why Martin Luther King Distrusted Jesse Jackson

Famed civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and many in his organization were leery of the upstart Jesse Jackson, who they saw as race baiting and conflict driven. In addition, everyone else at the SCLC was a minister. Jackson’s unenthusiastic and short-lived attendance at seminary made clear he was not interested in pastoring a flock, yet he found a way to work the system and put the “Rev.” in front of his name. Surely worst, however, in Jackson’s never-ending pursuit of self-promotion was his callous disregard for Dr. King’s honor at the time of his assassination.

By S.T. Patrick

This April marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorials will be held, scholarships will be dedicated, legislative resolutions will be passed, books will be published, and documentaries will be released. The tragic events of April 1968 included both the killing of King and the false blame attributed to James Earl Ray. Many may have forgotten that King’s death also marked the dubious rise of “Reverend” Jesse Jackson.

King had accepted an invitation to speak at the church of Rev. Clay Evans on the south side of Chicago in 1966, where Jackson, having met King in Selma, Ala. in 1965 and always one to seize an opportunity, pushed himself closer to King throughout the visit. He picked King up at the airport and hobnobbed with his team enough to earn a staff job and an annual salary of $3,000 from the King organization.

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

Despite his official inclusion on King’s staff, King soon found himself unimpressed with aspects of Jackson’s personality. He was especially troubled with Jackson’s reflexive ability to escalate encounters with government officials, police departments, and innocent bystanders.

As Kenneth R. Timmerman, the author of Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson, wrote, “King left Chicago profoundly suspicious of Jackson’s taste for self-promotion.”

No matter how hard Jackson may have worked to get to the front of the line of luminaries within the late 1960s civil rights movement, he lacked one thing that King’s closest confidants possessed: Jackson wasn’t a man of the cloth.

“Dr. King told Jesse that everybody who worked in the movement was a minister,” said Hurley Green, a former speechwriter, columnist, and friend of Jackson, “so Jesse went to seminary for six months, dropped out, and called himself a minister.”

Jackson’s limited time spent at the Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS) was verified by Chaplain A. Knighton Stanley, who stated that Jackson was not committed to the church nor had he discovered a true vocation. Jackson had even failed to fulfill the required class on sermon writing and delivery that one would think would be important for someone truly interested in the ministry and communicating with his flock.

Jackson later clarified why he attended CTS for the time that he did. “I decided to go to seminary to learn how to do without the law to change society, to change it in deeper ways,” he said.

The distrust and exasperation King had with Jackson continued through 1968. In Memphis, one week before the assassination, King made a decision to cancel participation in a demonstration that he believed could turn violent. Jackson, in front of King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) staff, boisterously disagreed with King’s cancellation of the march.

Angry at Jackson’s response, King walked out of the meeting. The team neared the breaking point with Jackson as they, as Timmerman wrote, “mistrusted his ambition, his audacity, and his refusal to be a team player.” They could have never imagined the depths to which Jackson would sink a week later.

An Act of State, by William F. Pepper

An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, by William F. Pepper: On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King was in Memphis supporting a worker strike. By nightfall, army snipers were in position, military officers were on a nearby roof with cameras, and Lloyd Jowers had been paid to remove the gun after the fatal shot was fired. When the dust had settled, King had been hit and a clean-up operation was set in motion—James Earl Ray was framed, the crime scene was destroyed, and witnesses were killed. William Pepper, attorney and friend of King, has conducted a 30-year investigation into his assassination. In 1999, Lloyd Jowers and other co-conspirators were brought to trial in a civil action suit on behalf of the King family. Seventy witnesses set out the details of a conspiracy that involved J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Richard Helms and the CIA, the military, Memphis police, and organized crime. The jury took an hour to find for the King family. In An Act of State, you finally have the truth before you—how the U.S. government shut down a movement for social change by stopping its leader dead in his tracks. Get the updated version of William F. Pepper’s tour de force (softcover, 350 pages, $22 plus $4 S&H inside the U.S.) from the AFP Online Store.

As King lay dying on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, Jackson claims—and has claimed since 1968—that he was the last to speak to King and cradled King’s head as he died. Jackson then appeared on Chicago television the next day, wearing a bloody turtleneck that he said was stained with the blood of the fallen civil rights leader. King associates have always challenged Jackson’s self-described role on that day as fabricated and distasteful. Jackson, in reality, was in the parking lot below. Critics also claim that Jackson went so far as to wipe King’s blood on his shirt for the sole purpose of going on television to build his own legend.

After King’s death, the leadership of the SCLC fell into the hands of MLK’s chosen successor, Ralph Abernathy. Jackson almost immediately clashed with Abernathy, about whom Jackson famously exclaimed to biographer Eddie Stone, “I never listen to that ni**er!”

Abernathy isn’t the only civil rights leader to incur the wrath of Jackson’s ambition. There have also been conflicts with Minister Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Al Sharpton, and former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young. If anyone challenged Jackson’s stranglehold on the role of civil rights media darling and ace pundit, Jackson viewed them as a threat.

Jackson did eventually become a minister, of sorts. CTS offered him a master’s degree in divinity in 2000. The only requirement for such was that he engage in a two-hour discussion with a professor on the topics of abortion and the death penalty. Sitting on the board of CTS in 2000 was Jesse Jackson Jr., the young Democratic member of Congress.

Jackson had used the title of “Reverend” since his early days as a community organizer, even without an education in theology. He rose to stardom on the basis of a history with Dr. King that was contentious and in many cases untrue. He stayed in power by extorting companies out of donations with race-based threats. And he has built an enemies list—white, black, and international—as long as anyone in contemporary American history. He keeps hope alive that his legacy will someday find itself parallel to King’s, yet like his coalition, his greatest dreams may only be found somewhere over the rainbow.

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

Read Newly Released House Memo Blasting FBI Here

Regular readers of AFP know that U.S. law enforcement regularly abuse their powers to investigate and arrest everyday Americans. It is no small comfort that law enforcement at the highest levels now stands accused of committing similar contentious acts against a presidential contender who was a threat to the establishment.

By AFP Staff

On Feb. 2, the House Intelligence Committee released a secret memo alleging the Justice Department abused its powers to surveil the Trump campaign.

As per the law, President Donald Trump was required to authorize the release. He could have chosen to redact key parts, but the billionaire president decided to release it in its entirety so the public could see for themselves the abusive process.

The memo was originally compiled by House Intelligence Committee staff, led by Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), from classified documents provided by the Department of Justice.

The Justice Department and the FBI both objected to its release but the House and the president overruled them. Read the memo by clicking the link here.

50 Years Later, We Don’t Know Who Killed Martin Luther King

At this 50th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., mainstream media has once again presented the “open-and-shut case” assumption that he was murdered by James Earl Ray. Yet numerous respected assassination researchers as well as members of King’s family have long disputed this establishment story. They suggests that, instead, Ray was merely a patsy.

By S.T. Patrick

Even through the latest JFK assassination file releases, the questions regarding the life and death of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. still penetrate the American conscience 50 years later. King was shot outside the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tenn. on April 4, 1968. James Earl Ray, a fugitive from the Missouri State Penitentiary, was captured two months later at Heathrow Airport in London. Within nine months, Ray had been convicted, legally and publicly, of assassinating King and sentenced to 99 years. He died in prison in 1998 at the age of 70.

Though the case was closed in the minds of the mainstream media and the historical establishment, doubts existed in the minds of dedicated researchers who never accepted their final conclusions. Like Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan—the supposed assassins of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, respectively—Ray seemed to be a patsy. Ray later confirmed that he was a patsy to a mysterious figure named “Raoul.”

More than Oswald and Sirhan, Ray was an archetypal figure tailor-made for the divisive times in which the murder occurred. Even the civil rights era’s most palpable black leader was killed by a racist Southerner, many thought.

IRS Loses Cases

Some of the most respected assassination researchers of the late 20th century believe that Ray was innocent of the King murder. Attorney and author Mark Lane helped free witness Grace Stephens from a sanitarium. Stephens was at Bessie’s Boarding House with her common-law husband, Charlie Stephens, when King was shot at the Lorraine. Ms. Stephens clearly saw a man running from the communal bathroom after shots were fired. When urged to testify, she refused to testify that the man quickly exiting the bathroom was Ray. Though Mr. Stephens was drunk, without his glasses, and did not see the man clearly, he fingered Ray as that man. His testimony was then used to extradite Ray from England. Ms. Stephens was sent to a sanitarium.

Dr. William F. Pepper was accused assassin Ray’s last attorney. He exhausted every option available in an attempt to gain Ray a trial before his death. Pepper still adamantly believes that Ray was never given the trial constitutionally promised to him. In 1969, Tennessee officials and Ray’s first attorney, Percy Foreman, intimidated Ray into a guilty plea. Pepper later won a televised mock trial for Ray in 1993 when the jury returned a “not guilty” verdict.

As it turns out, King’s greatest enemies did not reside in the Southern United States at all. J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was targeting King throughout the Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson presidencies—away from Kennedy’s reach and with active participation from Johnson. The newly released JFK assassination files contain a 20-page FBI analysis of King that portrays him in the harshest light. The document alleges ties to communist influences, usage of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) as “a tax dodge,” and philandering of the highest order.

In 1964 a package arrived at the home of King and his wife, Coretta. The package contained various tapes compromising to King’s marriage, as well as a letter that appeared to urge him toward suicide. “There is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is,” the letter read. The package was sent anonymously, though a Senate committee later confirmed that it had been sent by the FBI.

An Act of State, William F. Pepper
Updated version is now available from the American Free Press Bookstore!

Unlike the Kennedy family, which has remained publicly quiet on the subject of the JFK and RFK assassins, the King family has been both opinionated and active. Since 1997, Coretta Scott King and youngest son Dexter have worked with Pepper in an attempt to free Ray, literally until Ray’s death and historically thereafter. Inspired by Pepper’s book An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, King’s daughter Yolanda and cousin Isaac Ferris were also on board to find the truth of the assassination. In 1997, Dexter King, with the aid of Pepper, even visited Ray in prison.

When, at a later wrongful death trial, a jury affirmed that they believed “others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy,” Ms. King invoked her late husband’s words: “My husband once said that the moral arch of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

The civil court ruling prompted an 18-month investigation by then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s Justice Department. It ruled that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King was neither proven nor present.

As the 50th anniversary of the assassination approaches in April, media attention will increase. The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and the three-letter national networks will inevitably convict Ray once more.

Skeptical authors like Phillip Nelson will release the revisionist counterpoint. Nelson’s Who Really Killed MLK? The Case Against Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover will be available in April.

As Donald Sutherland’s character says to Kevin Costner’s “Jim Garrison” in Oliver Stone’s “JFK”: “Kings are killed, Mr. Garrison. Politics is power. Nothing more.” Whether or not the FBI dossiers on King are to be believed—credible information exists that at least some of them are—the question of assassination and the guilt of Ray are still dubious at best. But when we allow political assassination to go unchecked, the spine of democracy weakens and the core threatens to crumble.

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

Pentagon Officially Confirms Government’s Interest in UFOs

The Pentagon has officially admitted its Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, a long-term government investigation into the UFO phenomenon. Notable UFOlogists have written for decades about government programs including Majestic-12 and Project Blue Book. Given this acknowledgement by the official secret-keepers, are we closer to knowing the truth about Area 51 and possible extraterrestrial encounters? 

By S.T. Patrick

After decades of denials, chuckles, and ad hominem attacks on anyone questioning whether or not the United States government has engaged in the study of UFOs, the silence is broken.

Until now, it was easy to label amateur and professional UFOlogists as “the tinfoil hat crew” or “crackpots.” However, the Pentagon has now officially confirmed the existence of a $22 million program that collected, analyzed, and categorized “anomalous aerospace threats”—or “UFOs” in the more common vernacular. According to information released in late December by The Washington Post, the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program was just another instance of what has been a long-term government investigation into the UFO phenomenon.

The investigations date back to the 1950s and 1960s, as UFOlogists such as Stanton Friedman, a nuclear physicist by trade, have known for years. Friedman, educated at the University of Chicago, has written Crash at Corona (1992) about the Roswell incident and Top Secret/Majic (1997) about the Majestic 12 (MJ-12) program that was formed by an executive order signed by Harry Truman.

According to Stanton, who in 1984 received anonymous documents detailing the MJ-12 roster and activities, the program was created in direct response to the Roswell, N.M. UFO crash of 1947. Created to investigate and recover alien (unknown) spacecraft, MJ-12 included such luminaries as Sidney Souers and Hoyt Vandenberg, the first two directors of central intelligence; Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA; James Forrestal, the first secretary of defense; Vannevar Bush, who headed the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II; Donald Menzel, a noted skeptic who Friedman claims was a true believer, and others.

IRS Loses Cases

To his credit, Friedman has uncovered as many hoaxes as he has validated incidents he believes to be real. Some of the MJ-12 documents originally made available to Friedman were ones he invalidated as hoaxes. That, however, does not deter his avid belief that other documents, as well as the program itself, were real. Friedman points out that it is a common practice in top-secret intelligence to include a smattering of hoax documents alongside real ones.

MJ-12 was not the only government project looking at UFOs after Roswell. Project Blue Book was a series of United States Air Force studies on unidentified flying objects. It lasted from 1952 to 1970. By the time it had ceased, Project Blue Book had collected 12,618 UFO reports, most that the National Reconnaissance Office characterized as flights of formerly secret reconnaissance planes such as the U-2 and the A-12.

Annie Jacobsen, a former contributing editor to The Los Angeles Times’ magazine, is an author specializing in what has been called “war, weapons, security, and secrets.” She has written Area 51: An Uncensored History of America’s Top Secret Military Base (2015), Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program that Brought Nazi Scientists to America (2014), and The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top Secret Military Research Agency (2015), a finalist for the 2016 Pulitzer Prize in History.

Ms. Jacobsen tackled the UFO question regarding Area 51 in a way that may be more controversial than the alien back-engineering theory that has persisted since KLAS-TV Las Vegas journalist George Knapp popularized the phrase “Area 51” while interviewing Bob Lazar in 1989. Lazar claims to have back-engineered alien spacecraft while briefly working at Area 51.

Ms. Jacobsen’s thesis is that Area 51, located in the Nevada desert, has been a vital site for national security and weapons development since its inception. Stealth technology, such as the CIA’s A-12, was developed at Area 51. Early U-2 tests were also conducted at the base. Area 51, Ms. Jacobsen writes, was strategically important during the era of Sputnik, the Bay of Pigs, the lunar landing, and the Vietnam War. It was where America’s most important espionage projects were tested and analyzed. Back-engineering was performed at Area 51, Ms. Jacobsen details, but it was a Soviet MiG and not an alien space craft.

Ms. Jacobsen likens the Roswell crash to the opening shot of the Cold War. She dismisses the alien theories altogether while hypothesizing that the supposed aliens recovered outside of Roswell were actually human guinea pigs, the result of American experimentation gone awry. The UFO rumors, then, were cover stories for the grisly experiments that were conducted on humans.

The official line was to deny even the existence of Area 51, though warning signs, motion- and sound-detection devices, and Wackenhut security lined its outer rim. Government interest in UFOs, Roswell, and Area 51 has leaked in both news and biography. Upon retirement, former CIA director Adm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter served on the board of directors of the National Investigations Committee for Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), which lobbied against government cover-ups of UFO information from the 1950s through the 1970s.

What we now know is that Area 51, the base also known as “Dreamland,” has been used since the dawn of the Cold War to test aviation that pushed the limits of sight, sound, and detection. Though the Nevada desert can be barren, desolate, and dry, something is, indeed, out there.

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

Manson Innocent of Murders?

The November 2017 death of imprisoned cult leader Charles Manson spurred new interest in research refuting the official story. Famed attorney Vincent Bugliosi helped frame the public’s understanding of the “Manson Family cult” but was his fascinating narrative accurate? Author Nikolas Schreck disagrees with Bugliosi and suggests in a new book there’s much more to the story than a group of deranged druggies gone wild. 

By S.T. Patrick

On Nov. 19, 2017 Charles Manson, 83, died in Bakersville, Calif. while serving a life sentence for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the 1969 Tate-LaBianca killings. He was originally sentenced to death until California banned the death penalty in 1972 and his sentence was commuted.

The reaction to Manson’s death has been both typical for and parallel to the mainstream mass media’s coverage of Manson’s case, biography, and personality since 1969. Hollywood has also reacted. Mia Farrow, a friend of murdered actress Sharon Tate, tweeted that her thoughts were with Tate and the rest of “Manson’s victims.”

One of the few undisputed facts of the Manson legal case was that he physically committed none of the Tate-LaBianca murders that rocked the Hollywood hills on Aug. 9 and 10, 1969. They were committed by those associated with Manson—Charles “Tex” Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten. Linda Kasabian was given immunity for her testimony regarding the details of the killings.

After the prosecution rested in the 1970 trial, the defense filed a few formal dismissal motions before resting three days later. Much to the dismay, anger, and surprise of Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten, no witnesses were called for the defense. Manson, in a 1989 interview, angrily said, “Had you let us put on a defense, we could have explained to you why it happened.”

Legend and lore have since been attached to the Manson case by prosecuting attorney Vincent Bugliosi, who in 1974 co-wrote Helter Skelter about Manson and the case. It was Helter Skelter that perpetuated the story regarding the use of the Beatles song for which the book was named. Bugliosi argued that Manson, a failed musician, was obsessed with the Beatles and used the term to describe secret messages that signaled the chaos that would occur when a race war broke out across America. The senseless murders committed by “The Manson Family” would be the spark that ignited that war. According to Bugliosi, the “Family” members were mesmerized, zombie-like followers who executed Manson’s twisted, demented demands.

Nikolas Schreck, the author of The Manson File: Myth and Reality of an Outlaw Shaman, disagrees with what he calls “the Helter Skelter myth.” The picture of Manson and those around him at the Spahn Ranch is very different than the one painted by Bugliosi and dramatized in multiple made-for-television movies. Schreck first wrote to Manson in 1985 and spent decades corresponding with Manson and his associates.

German-English actor Ferdinand Mayne gave Schreck his first breakthrough when he told Schreck it was a well-known secret around Hollywood that Manson and his associates had known the victims personally.

Schreck dispels the myth of Manson as a spurned, untalented musician out to avenge his rock-and-roll failures. Manson was not a parasitic fame chaser, as outlined in the Helter Skelter myth. Rather, Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson was looking for a spiritual mentor at a time when he was lost and needed a cultural spark. Manson, Schreck argues, was that spark.

At over 1,000 pages, The Manson File goes into great depth in an attempt to correct the false narratives of the dramatis personae that surrounded Manson at Spahn Ranch and at trial.

Schreck describes Manson’s circle as a “group marriage” in a polygamous commune, not a cult with a unified ideology. The women were known to peers as “Charlie’s girls” and not “The Family,” which was a title later assigned by the media.

The myth of Manson’s brainwashing was first spread by Atkins, who had a well-known mafia lawyer, Richard Caballero. Schreck believes the financially “poor hippie girl” was given mafia representation to protect the mafia-drug ties that were the real reasons for the murders, a drug robbery that turned violent. Atkins’s grisly prison confessions then were attempts to build a reputation among the hardened inmates.

Van Houten’s testimony also seemed guided, according to Schreck. He believes that Van Houten took part in the LaBianca murders in an effort to free her imprisoned boyfriend, Bobby Beausoleil, jailed for killing Gary Hinman. Van Houten believed that they could commit similar crimes that would make officials believe Beausoleil didn’t actually kill Hinman. Schreck emphasizes that this was not a theory believed by Manson. Now portrayed as the most culpable of the women, The Manson File portrays Van Houten as having the most extreme ideological views of the girls charged in the murders.

Schreck characterizes Krenwinkel as the most violent of the women. He believes that the killings should actually be called the “Watson-Krenwinkel Murders.”

Related: More on Manson from Victor Thorn, in these two books available from the American Free Press Bookstore:

Conspireality by Victor Thorn       

Bugliosi puts a scared Kasabian at the scene only because she had a valid drivers license. Schreck believes she was, with Watson, a major instigator of the murders. Kasabian had already been arrested on drug charges, and Watson, on the day he met her, convinced her to steal $5,000 from her husband. She had also attended drug parties next door to the LaBianca home. Kasabian lives as a free woman today.

Bugliosi, who died in 2015, did not end his career without controversy. Though the JFK assassination research community can often be fracture, there was unity in their disapproval of Bugliosi’s 2007 work on the Kennedy assassination, Reclaiming History, in which he argued that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Schreck doesn’t defend Manson as a human being. Rather, he disagrees with the facts of the case as popularized by the prosecuting attorney with a legend to defend and a brand to build.

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

Tenacious Sandy Hook Researcher Wins One in Court

As questions continue to surround the official story of the devastating 2012 shooting of schoolchildren and staff in Newtown, Conn., one researcher has prevailed in a lawsuit brought against him by the father of one of the slain children. Dave Gahary interviewed former state trooper Wolfgang Halbig to learn more about the situation. 

By Dave Gahary

TAVARES, Fla.—As the five-year anniversary of one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history approached, this small city in central Florida—located 1,144 miles from Newtown, Conn.—recently played host to the ongoing drama around whether or not the Dec. 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place as the government says it did.

Wolfgang W. Halbig, who is convinced no children were killed at Sandy Hook, prevailed in a lawsuit brought against him by the father—Leonard Pozner—of one of the children murdered by 20-year-old Adam Lanza. Halbig achieved mass notoriety when an interview that this reporter had conducted with him revealed that Halbig had been visited by two homicide detectives from his local sheriff’s office, who asked him to stop asking questions about the shooting.

Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper and school safety consultant, is best known for his request to have his “16 simple questions” about the event answered by calling and emailing multiple agencies as well as by filing dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Pozner brought the suit against Halbig when Halbig revealed on his website the contents of a FOIA request, which included some of Pozner’s personal information.

This reporter attended the Nov. 7 hearing in Tavares and conducted an exclusive interview with Halbig’s attorney, Caleb Payne, who discussed a bit of his client’s history vis-à-vis Sandy Hook and the details of the case.

American Free Press asked him how he got hooked up with Halbig.

“I jumped at the chance to represent Wolf in this case because to me it’s a very clear First Amendment violation,” he said. “The First Amendment is something that is integral to our society and the ability for people in the media and the press to be able to ask questions and keep the rest of the government in check.”

Payne explained how Pozner came to sue Halbig. In a disturbing turn of events, a symptom of the police state warned about by John W. Whitehead in his A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, state agents simply showed up at his house unannounced, wanting to rifle through Halbig’s personal belongings just for asking some questions.

“Mr. Halbig was in his home when some agents with the state showed up and wanted to go through his records,” Caleb explained. “He asked what this was about, and they stated that someone had filed a complaint with the state attorney here, Pam Bondi. So Mr. Halbig then filed a FOIA request to get that [complaint] from Ms. Bondi’s office. He received it, and he put it on the web.”

The FOIA contained Pozner’s mailing address, a post office box, but that was enough for him to hire a lawyer. In response, Halbig not only removed the personal information—which he wasn’t required to do—but also deactivated his website, sandyhookjustice.com. Pozner, however, continued to harass Halbig.

The judge ordered Pozner to be at the next hearing and produce the answers required via discovery—requests for answers to interrogatories, production of documents, and depositions.

The chance to question Pozner under the watchful eye of a video camera never arrived, however, as Pozner dismissed his complaint the afternoon he was required to provide the discovery answers, leaving Halbig with a big legal bill and a shuttered website. Halbig says he will countersue for attorney’s fees and costs.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

Anomalies in Vegas Mass Shooting Call for Open Investigation

Rather than providing answers to what actually happened in Las Vegas when “lone wolf” Stephen Paddock allegedly fired hundreds of shots into a festival crowd from a hotel room window above the Las Vegas Strip, officials have been evasive, fueling citizen journalists’ investigations of the events. Why are officials apparently so uneasy with details surrounding this event, and why has mainstream media stopped covering what is allegedly the largest massacre by an individual in U.S. history?

By S.T. Patrick

Nearly two months after the Oct. 1 mass shooting outside of the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, the official explanation of what happened that evening has elicited more questions than it has provided answers. By mid-November, the increasingly rare release of news and information from Clark County and federal officials had critical alternative news outlets wondering how the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history had disappeared from a 24/7 news cycle.

When questions go unanswered, it often signals an uneasiness officials have with the questions themselves. Motivations can range from embarrassment caused by dereliction of duty on the part of employees and authorities to a fear that a true revelation of answers will cause an official narrative to crumble.

In the aftermath of the shooting that killed at least 57 attendees of the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, myriad questions remain unanswered.

Click here for S.T. Patrick’s “Midnight Writer News” podcast discussing alternative theories about what happened at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas:

Within two hours of the attacks, Las Vegas authorities announced that Stephen Paddock had acted alone. Fitting the archetype of a lone gunman, Paddock, 64, a native of nearby Mesquite, Nev., was portrayed as a loner, an alcoholic, and the son of a father who was on the FBI’s Most Wanted list for a decade. Sheriff Joe Lombardo avoided defining a specific motive but did allude to Paddock’s recent loss of significant wealth.

Paddock’s past remains murky in a way that has gone unexplained. He had taken several cruises that made port stops in the Middle East, yet despite ISIS claiming Paddock as their “soldier,” the FBI insisted there was “no connection with an international terrorist group.” He wired $100,000 to an account in the Philippines a week before the shootings; officials still have not disclosed the details of the transfer.

According to investigators who searched his Mandalay Bay suite after the shootings, Paddock’s hard drive was suspiciously missing from his laptop.

The strange tale of security guard Jesus Campos has been an enigma from the beginning. Campos was supposedly shot in the leg at 9:59 p.m., about six minutes before Paddock reportedly first began his attack. Campos then reportedly went to UMC Quick Care for treatment, but the facility administrators stated they have “heard nothing” of Campos receiving treatment from them.

Campos then left the country, thus no-showing several scheduled television interviews. When he returned he did not sit down for an interview with a hard-hitting news organization. Instead, he appeared on the entertainment talk show “Ellen DeGeneres Show,” where he would not be expected to answer any probing questions.

Craig Eiland, an attorney for the victims, questioned why Paddock hadn’t been stopped before he began shooting out of the hotel room window. Eiland told Fox News two police officers were attending to Campos outside of Paddock’s door before the shooting of concert attendees began. Officials later claimed that it took them until 10:17 p.m.—18 minutes after Paddock shot Campos—to pinpoint the location of the shooter.

Security experts have estimated that Mandalay Bay has over 3,000 security cameras. The Los Angeles Times referred to Las Vegas casinos as “miniature surveillance states.” Yet no footage of Paddock has been released to the public. Officials have stated that no footage of Paddock exists, as the hotel’s hallways are without cameras for logistical reasons.

On Sept. 11, an anonymous poster going by the moniker “John” posted an ominous warning on the “4chan” imageboard website warning readers to stay away from large gatherings in Las Vegas. After his initial predicted date passed without incident, many labeled it a hoax. Three weeks later, many wondered who “John” was and what he really knew. He had predicted a false-flag incident that would result in a major overhaul of Las Vegas security. He also claimed that several individuals would profit from the mass killing. AFP is not naming the individuals cited by John for legal reasons, but they include a prominent former U.S. official and a billionaire.

One of the most widely discussed pieces of footage from the Las Vegas shooting was the video of a young woman who described how a short, Hispanic woman and her boyfriend pushed their way to the front of the crowd. They began loudly harassing a woman until security began escorting them out of the venue. As the woman was being led out, she began shouting, “You’re all going to die!”

Kymberley Suchomel, 28, was uninjured in the attack. Her Facebook post detailing the belief that there were multiple shooters on the ground soon went viral. “There was more than one gun firing. 100% more than one,” she wrote. She wanted to organize a group of witnesses who would help tell the truth and correct the official narrative. A week later, Suchomel died, reportedly of an epileptic seizure.

One theory surrounding the shootings is that the chaos at Mandalay Bay was part of a larger project that would end in an assassination at the Tropicana Hotel and Casino and a coup in Saudi Arabia. The theory is that Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, co-owner of floors 35-39 of Mandalay Bay, had planned an assassination of his cousin Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is next in line to be king of Saudi Arabia.

Angry that the moderate Sunni Crown Prince Salman was named next in line for the throne by his father, King Salman, Talal, an extreme Wahhabist, allegedly ordered an attempt on the life of Salman to take place on Nov. 1 in Las Vegas. Paddock, the theory states, was a pilot who ran guns between the U.S. and the Philippines for Talal. Paddock’s wealth came from the gun running and not gambling. It was Talal who also gave Paddock access to the service elevators. The attempt on Salman’s life failed, and Paddock became Talal’s sacrificial lamb rather than his getaway pilot. Rumors of shots fired at the Tropicana persist.

On Nov. 4, Salman had Talal arrested on corruption and money laundering charges.

There were additional witnesses who reported shooters on the ground, shots fired in other hotels along the Las Vegas strip, anomalies in the police radio dispatches, reports of fireworks before the shots, and amateur photographic analysts who question the contents of the official and unofficial photos that have been released.

As the corps of citizen researchers continues to do the journalistic work that the mainstream media seems unwilling to execute, those following the story will continue to wonder—to paraphrase the ad campaign—what happened in Vegas.

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

JFK Researcher Honored in Dallas

Longtime researcher Robert Groden, who saved the Zapruder film from the dustbin of history, received a lifetime achievement award for his JFK research.

By S.T. Patrick

At the recent 5th Annual JFK Assassination Conference in Dallas, veteran researcher Robert Groden—the man who single-handedly saved the famous Zapruder film from the dustbin of history—was given the Garrison-Lane Lifetime Achievement Award for JFK Research.

Groden is considered one of the leading first-generation researchers—researchers who began their work between the day of the assassination in 1963 and the end of the Lyndon Johnson administration in 1968. Groden turned 18 on the day President John F. Kennedy was shot in Dealey Plaza. His work began shortly thereafter.

“Within days, actually, before the [assassination] week was out,” Groden said, “I was already archiving everything I could find and reading everything I could find . . . being fascinated by the fact that the assassination itself had been filmed . . . not by one, not by two, but actually by five different people. I was intrigued as to why these films were all being hidden from public view.”

IRS Loses Cases

Groden would be the catalyst behind the effort to show the most famous film of the assassination to the public. As a photo-optics technician for a New York City motion picture processing lab, he was on staff when Life magazine contracted with the lab to convert the 26-second Zapruder film from 8mm to 35mm.

“As we did it, let’s just say an extra copy was made that Life didn’t know about,” Groden slyly stated. “It became the most important 26 seconds of history ever photographed.”

Fearing legal ramifications and attempts on his life, Groden kept the film private for several years. “There was a conspiracy to kill the president, and I was the only one who could prove it,” he said.

Groden, at the behest of the few researchers for whom he had screened the Zapruder film, showed the film at a Georgetown University symposium but to little national fanfare. Attending the next screening in Boston, however, was comedian-activist Dick Gregory, who urged Groden to show the film to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975. Groden and Steve Jaffe, one of Jim Garrison’s investigators, testified to the commission about CIA excesses and activities related to the JFK assassination. More importantly, Groden projected the Zapruder film for the commission.

While Groden was testifying in Washington, D.C., he received a call from Geraldo Rivera’s “Good Night America” staff. On March 6, 1975, Groden and Gregory appeared on Rivera’s ABC program to show the Zapruder film to the nation.

Within days, Groden was called to testify before the newly formed House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). He served as a photographic consultant for the HSCA, who in 1978 issued their final report, which stated that Kennedy was probably murdered as a result of a conspiracy.

The award given to Groden was named after New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and author and attorney Mark Lane. Garrison, whose case was dramatized in Oliver Stone’s 1991 film “JFK,” was the only government official to prosecute a case against those he believed were responsible for the murder.

Lane, an attorney who also became one of the leading early researchers in the case, published a critical article in the National Guardian four weeks after the assassination. Lane was also instrumental in setting up American Free Press in August 2001, serving as the newspaper’s corporate attorney for years. Garrison lost the case against New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw in 1969, but he wrote two seminal works on the case, A Heritage of Stone (1970) and On the Trail of the Assassins (1988). Lane’s 1966 book Rush to Judgment became the first widely popular work critical of the Warren Commission, the group set up by President Lyndon Johnson to create an official report on the Kennedy assassination.

Gary Fannin, the author of The Innocence of Oswald and member of the conference board that awarded Groden, called Garrison and Lane the “first two real heroes of the case.” Fannin also emphasized Groden’s importance, noting, “If it weren’t for Garrison, Lane, and Groden, a lot of [the assassination research] would never have been available.”

Lane is best known for his JFK assassination books, which also include A Citizen’s Dissent (1968), Plausible Denial (1991), and Last Word (2011), but Fannin pointed out that Lane should also be lauded for attempting, at the request of Marguerite Oswald, to represent Lee Harvey Oswald, her son, to the Warren Commission. It was this representation that the Warren Commission rejected.

The original publishing of Rush to Judgment became legendary among JFK researchers. Sixteen publishers cancelled contracts with Lane to publish it. Lane had to take the book to Europe to be published and was only paid $1,500 for writing what became a global phenomenon. Rush to Judgment became a No. 1 best seller that spent 29 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list.

Groden today can be found outside the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza on weekends. For 25 years, he has sold books, DVDs, and magazines that he has produced over the life of his research. He answers any and all questions from those researchers and assassination buffs who have made the trek to Dealey Plaza. At 72, he remains the most public and accessible of all the researchers. He also remains the most harassed by local Dallas officials. Groden has been ticketed 84 times for doing commerce in Dealey Plaza, all of which have been thrown out of court. He has been arrested and jailed twice.

“The lie pays more than the truth,” Fannin said. For Groden, there were personal sacrifices and missed professional opportunities that continue to impact his life today. But like Garrison and Lane, Groden is a vital member of an elite group of JFK assassination research figures who have changed the way Americans view the case.

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


Trump Will Release JFK Documents

The CIA and FBI are worried about President Trump’s release of thousands of JFK assassination files. Apparently, 54 years has not allowed them enough time to review the documents, so they’ve asked him for another six-month delay. The new deadline for the withheld documents is April 26, 2018. S.T. Patrick spoke with Joseph Green of the Hidden History Center to discuss the new documents released; podcast link below.

By S.T. Patrick

Though President Donald Trump has acquiesced to the CIA and FBI that requested another 180 days to reevaluate their reasons for redactions, the president did not block the release of over 2,800 John F. Kennedy assassination documents to the public. The releases coincided with the Oct. 26 date that had been set by the JFK Records Act of 1992—25 years to the day after the act was passed by Congress.

In July, the National Archives began releasing the first batch of documents. The releases came earlier than researchers had been expecting and included 441 CIA and FBI documents that had been completely withheld and 3,369 previously released documents that had been redacted to varying degrees.

The first significant revelation from the July records release concerned Earle Cabell, who was the mayor of Dallas in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated. Documents revealed that Cabell had been a CIA asset since 1956. His brother, Charles Cabell, had been deputy director of the CIA until Kennedy forced him to resign in the CIA shake-up that emanated from the Bay of Pigs fallout.

AFP Podcast

Another newly released record describes a phone call made 25 minutes before the assassination.  The anonymous call to the British Cambridge News warned a reporter that some “big news” was coming. The caller then suggested that the reporter call the American embassy for details. After the assassination, the reporter informed the Cambridge police, who then relayed the information to MI5, the UK’s domestic counter-intelligence and security agency.

Dr. John Newman, author of JFK & Vietnam and Oswald and the CIA, and Jefferson Morley of “JFKfacts.org” have been mining the 2017 releases for information on what and when the CIA knew about alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Morley, the author of The Ghost: The Secret Life of Spymaster James Jesus Angleton, has been using the documents to argue that the CIA controlled, rather than botched, the Warren Commission’s investigation of Oswald.

“The CIA made at least four false statements to investigators,” Morley wrote. “The effect of these statements was to conceal what top CIA officers, including Angleton, knew of Oswald while JFK was still alive.”

The new documents appear to quell many arguments that the KGB was actively involved in both Oswald’s preparation and the assassination itself. However, new questions have been raised about Cuban involvement. Theorists who have claimed involvement from Fidel Castro point to CIA attempts to assassinate Castro as motive. JFK assassination researchers such as Joseph Green of the Hidden History Center disagree in light of Castro’s own comments.

“If you’ve ever read what Castro said on Nov. 23, 1963, it’s an amazing speech,” Green said. “Castro had it figured out immediately. He said, ‘They’re going to blame it on us.’ Castro knew he was losing an ally. Lyndon Johnson’s foreign policy with respect to Cuba was not going to be the same as Kennedy’s. But he also saw that he was being set up.”

Green also believes the withheld documents are equally telling, as they weave a narrative about who is being protected.

“Are we covering up all of this because we are trying to protect the fact that the KGB sent (Oswald)?” Green asked. “Would the CIA be concerned about documents implicating Castro? No. There’s only one reason for the government to be upset and delaying after 54 years the release of documents that should be completely harmless documents.”

On Oct. 21, Trump tweeted that he would be “allowing, as president, the long blocked and classified JFK files to be opened.” Critics condemned the semantics of the tweet, stating that the president does not “allow” the release of the documents. The 1992 law mandates their release. He can, however, choose to block specific releases if he can show, according to the JFK Records Act, that a release would signify an “identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations . . . and that the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was set up by the act to serve as an independent agency that would consider arguments and then render decisions when the release of a record was challenged by a government agency. In its final report, the ARRB cited the Oliver Stone film “JFK” as a catalyst for the passage of the JFK Records Act. Since 1992, the ARRB has declassified over 5 million documents.

The general public still awaits a “smoking gun” document that the vast majority of researchers know will never come. The documents that have already been released add colors and dimensions to a basic construct that was established by first-generation researchers that questioned the Warren Commission immediately after its volumes were released in 1964.

A deadline for those documents withheld for further review has been set for April 26, 2018.

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

Rhode Island Tackles ‘Geoengineering’

No longer dismissed as “conspiracy theory nonsense,” Rhode Island’s general assembly is concerned enough that geoengineering, or “intentional manipulation of the environment,” involves “hazardous activities that can harm human health and safety, the environment, and the economy . . .” that they passed a bill to regulate all geoengineering activities.  

By Mark Anderson

In late September, Rhode Island became the first state to enact legislation that calls on officials to examine how atmospheric-modification programs, commonly referred to as “geoengineering,” are affecting the Earth. The measure in question is the Geoengineering Act of 2017 (H. 6011), which was introduced by state Rep. Justin Price (R) earlier this year.

“The Rhode Island general assembly finds that geoengineering encompasses many technologies and methods involving hazardous activities that can harm human health and safety, the environment, and the economy of the state of Rhode Island. . .. It is therefore the intention of the Rhode Island general assembly to regulate all geoengineering activities,” the bill says.

Specifically, the bill would “provide that a person seeking to engage in geoengineering activities would require a license from the director of the Department of Environmental Management,” an April 2017 legislative news release explained, adding: “Geoengineering is defined as the intentional manipulation of the environment, involving nuclear, biological, chemical, electromagnetic and/or other physical-agent activities that effect changes to earth’s atmosphere and/or surface.”

Cloud-seeding has long existed as a form of weather modification. One example is the U.S. military’s clandestine Operation Popeye, which illegally applied a “cold cloud modification system” using three WC-130 planes to shoot silver-iodide flares into the skies to induce heavy rains to muddy the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The purpose was to stop or slow North Vietnamese troop convoys.

IRS Loses Cases

But there’s a growing recognition that much else is going on above us—and has been for a long time. Many people call those criss-cross vapor streaks that often mar otherwise beautiful blue skies “chemtrails,” a broad term referring to visual evidence of an apparent program involving atmospheric spraying that allegedly goes beyond creating rainfall.

Perhaps the most common claim is that atmospheric aerosols are being sprayed to deflect sunlight and keep the Earth from getting too warm, in keeping with the climate change theory that world temperatures are unnaturally rising, and humanity’s industrial emissions are chiefly to blame.

Specialists interviewed by this AFP writer regarding geoengineering have some weighty concerns, especially regarding the bill’s “regulation” provision.

“There are concerted efforts in America and in Europe,” nuclear physicist and atmospheric researcher J. Marvin Herndon told AFP, “that are aimed at geoengineering ‘governance.’ All of those efforts, to my knowledge, fail to tell the full truth, fail to admit that geoengineering has been taking place covertly for decades.” He continued, “The more I learn of the horrific adverse health consequences for humans and other biota, the more I realize that there is only one acceptable act of governance: The total and complete ban on placing any and all substances into the air we breathe for any reason.”

Herndon did add, “Representative Justin Price deserves major kudos for not burying his head in the sand as most (virtually all) civic leaders do.”

Price’s bill requires advance disclosure of precise geoengineering plans before they’re carried out. Otherwise, geoengineering should be banned, said Price, who told reporters: “I think the public should not take the idea of geoengineering lightly, because we have no idea what irreversible damage could be done to the planet or our atmosphere . . .. Either the entire process is completely transparent to the public, with strict oversight, or I say, it absolutely should not happen.”

This bill, introduced on March 24 and passed by the House Sept. 19 by a 67-0 vote, would “create a five-member commission to study and provide recommendations on the regulation and licensure of geoengineering.”

Yet this issue runs even deeper than many may suspect. Jim Lee of South Carolina, a researcher on geoengineering, especially weather modification, spoke at length on such matters at last December’s Freedom Force International conference entitled “Global Warming: An Inconvenient Lie” in Phoenix, Ariz.

Lee credits Price for waking people up about geoengineering, but there already are broader laws on this subject that have long been on the books—such as the federal Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1976—that should be utilized to bring clandestine atmospheric modification into full public view and establish a means of policing, punishing or banning it.

The Rhode Island bill’s text says that violators would be punished $500,000 per occurrence with “not less than 190 days” in jail, and per occurrence could mean per day.

“With the Rhode Island bill, there’s no way to punish anybody,” Lee countered. “It doesn’t say anything about how you catch somebody [engaging in geoengineering flights] without a license. The 24-hour prior notice in the bill is okay, but we have to deploy atmospheric sensors to catch violators in the act.”

As he understands it, most atmospheric modification programs are “deep-state” and by definition would be hard to thwart under the Rhode Island bill—given the limited jurisdiction and land area of that small eastern state.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. You can email Mark directly at truthhound2@yahoo.com.

Company Wants Employees ‘Chipped’

Joining a high-technology office complex in Sweden, a Wisconsin company now says bio-chips can replace swipe cards, log in to computers, and order food. Distressingly, employees are lining up for the “convenient” implanted chip. 

By Dave Gahary

Five years ago this week, when American Free Press was the first national newspaper to break the story on a San Antonio, Texas school attempting to force all 4,200 students “to wear radio frequency identification (RFID) microchips embedded in the student IDs worn around their necks,” it may have seemed to most readers the stuff of science fiction. Not only is the technology more advanced today, however, it’s gaining acceptance as well.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Although the teenage heroine in AFP roving editor Mark Anderson’s 2012 report—Andrea Hernandez—eventually won her battle based on religious beliefs that opposed being “chipped,” having microchips voluntarily injected subcutaneously is now a growing fad.

Around two years after AFP’s report, the BBC reported on a company that’s perfecting the art of chipping. In Sweden, a high-technology office complex—Epicenter—is offering chipping to any employee who wants it, and many are jumping at the chance. Even BBC reporter Rory Cellan-Jones—who wrote the Jan. 29, 2015 article entitled “Office puts chips under staff’s skin”—volunteered to have the device, about the size of a grain of rice, implanted in his hand, between his thumb and index finger. He explained the process in the article.

First, he massaged the skin between my thumb and index finger and rubbed in some disinfectant. The[n] he told me to take a deep breath while he inserted the chip. There was a moment of pain—not much worse than any injection—and then he stuck a plaster [an adhesive bandage] over my hand.

Liberty Stickers

Eventually, all 700 employees working in the complex were to be offered the “opportunity” to be chipped.

The man implanting the chips—Hannes Sjoblad, who works for the Swedish “biohacking” company BioNyfiken—told the reporter:

We already interact with technology all the time. Today it’s a bit messy—we need pin codes and passwords. Wouldn’t it be easy to just touch with your hand? That’s really intuitive. We want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and big government come to us and say everyone should get chipped—the tax authority chip, the Google or Facebook chip.

An Associated Press (AP) article updating Epicenter’s “progress,” reported that of the “more than 100 companies and some 2,000 workers . . . about 150 workers have them.” The report notes a company in Belgium “also offers its employees such implants, and there are isolated cases around the world where tech enthusiasts have tried this out in recent years.”

“The implants have become so popular,” reports AP, “that Epicenter workers stage monthly events where attendees have the option of being ‘chipped’ for free.”

Now the chipping craze has crossed the pond. As reported in the pages of USA Today on July 24, a “Wisconsin technology firm has begun offering employees microchip implants so they can [enter the company building without a swipe card] and purchase food at work.” The company, Three Square Market (32M)—which is partnering with BioNyfiken—“has over 50 employees who plan to have the devices implanted.”

According to a company press release, 32M “is offering implanted chip technology to all of their employees. Employees will be chipped at the 32M inaugural ‘chip party’ hosted at their headquarters in River Falls, Wisc. on Aug. 1, 2017. Employees will be implanted with a RFID chip allowing them to make purchases in their break room micro market, open doors, log in to computers, use the copy machine etc.”

CEO Todd Westby states: “We foresee the use of RFID technology to drive everything from making purchases in our office break room market, opening doors, use of copy machines, logging into our office computers, unlocking phones, sharing business cards, storing medical/health information, and used as payment at other RFID terminals. Eventually, this technology will become standardized allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities etc.”

Vice President of International Sales Tony Danna added, “We see chip technology as the next evolution in payment systems.”

Gideon Elite book cover

Fortunately for those neo-luddites among us, not everyone is as eager to step into this brave, new world. State lawmakers in Nevada heard testimony earlier this year regarding chipping.

Legislation introduced by state Sen. Becky Harris “would bar forcefully implanted tracking microchips,” reported the Reno Gazette-Journal on Feb. 13. Sen. Harris believes “the chips pose serious ethical concerns, such as who owns the information stored on the chip and who owns the chip itself.”

She’s also concerned that the chips could be “hacked,” allowing someone unauthorized access to the chip for an illegal purpose.

“There’s no cryptology or protection measures that we’re aware of that are placed on these chips, so it’s possible to hack the information contained within the chips,” she said. “It is possible that you could harass or stalk chipped individuals with the right type of reader.”

Sen. Harris also claims “the chips also pose a potential health problem, citing studies that found fibrosarcoma and sarcoma, a malignant cancerous tumor, at injection sites in animal testing.”

Humans morphing into cancerous cyborgs may have come to pass, but it’s not fazing certain portions of the younger generation. A 25-year-old employee who works for a company in the Epicenter complex, Sandra Haglof, is ready for the transformation.

Laughing, she told AP, “I want to be part of the future.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information.

Clinton Researcher Commits Suicide Before Releasing Info on Crime Couple

Longtime Republican political operative and private equity industry manager from the Chicago area Peter W. Smith was found dead of alleged suicide 10 days after being interviewed by mainstream media about his investigation of Hillary and Bill Clinton. Sadly, information that would confirm or deny his suicide is not being released by the Chicago police or the coroner. Will Smith become simply one more open-ended mystery in the long string of individuals who’ve died under questionable circumstances after publicly revealing Clinton wrong-doing?

By Mark Anderson

Considering the sordid history of political intrigue and foul play surrounding Hillary and Bill Clinton, the rather mysterious death in Rochester, Minn. of a longtime investigator of the Clintons isn’t generating anything close to the level of public interest it deserves.

What’s worse is that national TV-media outlets evidently are blacking out news about investigator Peter W. Smith’s “suicide” and how and why he died in mid-May.

This broadcast-news suppression is even harder to explain considering several sizable newspapers and social media have to some extent covered Smith’s apparent “suicide.” Yet, the national TV networks did not run with the story, even as they obsess nonstop over flimsy Trump-Russia “collusion” allegations.

The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, took the lead in publishing reports on Smith’s research on Hillary, having interviewed Smith just 10 days before he was found dead. Smith is reported to have left a suicide note, stating that he took his own life at age 81 due to ill health. Smith allegedly had traveled to Rochester to visit the famous Mayo Clinic.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The official explanation: In Rochester’s Aspen Suites Hotel on May 14, Smith did himself in by putting a plastic bag around his head and pumping the bag full of helium from a propane-style tank, to displace the oxygen and asphyxiate himself. At least that’s what police, a funeral home employee, and some mainstream newspapers, including The Chicago Tribune, have reported.

And in the note that police claim they found, Smith reportedly “apologized to authorities and said that ‘no foul play whatsoever’ was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a ‘recent bad turn in health since January 2017’ and timing related ‘to life insurance of $5 million expiring.’ ”

Gideon Elite book cover


Smith’s investigations of the Clintons covered a lengthy time period—back to Bill Clinton’s “Troopergate” sexual-scandal days as Arkansas governor and during the Clinton White House and its countless collusions, including Chinagate.

Chinagate saw well-connected Chinese businessmen enter the White House dozens of times to make financial arrangements—dare it be called bribery—for obtaining U.S. military missile-guidance technology for Chinese companies through Clinton, among other things that dwarf anything that President Donald Trump is being accused of.

But Smith’s latest project involved looking into Hillary’s emails from her time as secretary of state from 2009-2013. He had been poking around lately to get more information on over 30,000 emails that Hillary claimed she deleted simply because they contained personal matters.

What really matters here is what Hillary’s emails contain, not who hacked them. Hillary’s emails likely contain information exposing that foreign officials—government and/or corporate, etc.—donated money to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for political favors via Hillary’s secretary of state office.


The Tribune is among the relatively few newspapers that has sustained the probe into Smith’s research and seemingly sudden suicide, although, in so doing, this formerly intrepid newspaper, once operated by legendary anti-war conservative Col. Robert R. McCormick, appears prone to giving Chicago native Hillary Clinton considerable leeway.

Former President Barack Obama was incubated in the same Chicago political machine from which Hillary ascended—and where former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel serves as mayor. And there have been rumblings that Hillary may run for mayor.

The Tribune said it “obtained a Minnesota state death record filed in Olmsted County, saying Smith committed suicide in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic at 1:17 p.m. on Sunday, May 14.” However, an autopsy was carried out, but the Southern Minnesota Regional Medical Examiner’s Office “declined a Tribune request for the autopsy report and released limited information about Smith’s death.”

A spokeswoman for AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., listed in recovered documents as Smith’s insurance carrier, “had no immediate comment,” the Tribune also noted.

By not releasing the autopsy report, the coroner has made it harder for researchers to make an assessment of what happened to Smith independent of Minnesota authorities. Making matters worse, Smith’s body was cremated in Minnesota.

Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson did describe Smith’s death as “unusual.” A Rochester Cremation Services employee, from the funeral home that responded to the hotel’s call, added to the controversy by saying he recalled seeing a “tank” when he helped remove Smith’s body from the hotel room.

“The employee, who spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitive nature of Smith’s death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the coroner and police were there and that he ‘didn’t do a lot of looking around,’ ” the Tribune noted.

Police said they found a receipt from a local Walmart “time-stamped from the previous day, May 13 at 12:53 p.m.” for the purchase of “Helium Jumbo” tanks and other items. Yet because police, perhaps naively, feel that no foul play occurred, they apparently have not bothered to access Walmart security videos to see if Smith himself purchased the tanks.

Finally, police said that the two helium tanks in the room were draped with vinyl-covered ankle or wrist weights, the kind used for exercise.

“The report did not offer an explanation for the weights,” the Tribune added.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.