Israeli Teen Arrested for Making Bomb Threats to Jewish Centers

According to reports, a 19-year-old Jewish Israeli man has been arrested in Israel and is being charged with making “most” of the bomb threat calls to Jewish institutions since Jan. 1.

By John Tiffany

Since Jan. 1, over 100 bomb threats have been made against Jewish institutions, such as schools and community centers, around the world, including in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. The establishment immediately insinuated that “hateful Trump supporters” were terrorizing the Jewish community. Now, it turns out a 19-year-old Jewish man living in Israel, who holds dual citizenship in America and the Middle Eastern state, stands accused of making most of the threats.

The “cyberattack unit” of Israel’s fraud squad arrested the teenager March 23, it was reported in Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper. The arrest was based on information received from the FBI and other non-Israeli law enforcement agencies.

The motives of the crime are as yet unknown, said an Israeli police spokesman.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Israeli cops seized computers and other equipment the “primary suspect” allegedly used to make it hard for police to track the culprit to his lair. The suspect will remain in custody for at least the next seven days while the investigation continues.

Israeli Judge Amit Michles said, “. . . reasonable suspicion already exists at this stage that convincingly links the suspect to the calls that have been attributed to him . . . to different institutions around the world . . . some of which have led to panic.”

It is looking as if something like an insanity defense is contemplated.

The prisoner’s lawyer, Galit Bash, said: “This is a young man without a criminal record who from a young age suffers from severe medical problems. There is concern that his medical condition affects his cognitive functioning. Therefore, we asked the court to order that the young man be referred to a medical examination. The court accepted our claims and instructed the police to examine the young man’s medical condition.”

The 19-year-old was never enlisted in Israel’s usually mandatory army service because he was determined to be unfit to serve.

The waves of bomb threats all turned out to be hoaxes.

In “at least three” instances, bomb threats were also reportedly accompanied by destruction at Jewish cemeteries, including one in which more than 500 headstones were broken or toppled in Philadelphia. However, in one case in Brooklyn, vandals never toppled gravestones. Instead, dozens of grave stones fell due to neglect and the fact that no one was taking care of them.

In a related case, a former Chicago reporter named Juan Thompson, 31, was arrested recently for his “role” in a number of bomb threats against Jewish centers. Allegedly, he did this “as part of an ongoing attempt to shame his former girlfriend,” Ha’aretz reported. It is not known at this time whether the two suspects are linked in some way other than coincidence.

Thompson was charged with making at least eight threats against Jewish institutions in the United States, and a bomb threat to New York’s so-called Anti-Defamation League.

John Tiffany writes exclusively for AMERICAN FREE PRESS.

Billionaire NWO Leader David Rockefeller Dead at 101

The noted scion of an elite banking family passed away quietly on March 20, leaving behind a legacy of globalist machinations to form a one-world government. Known for helping establish the infamous Bilderberg group, David Rockefeller has been absent from the annual gathering of late, but early predictions have this year’s Bilderberg likely taking place in Virginia.

By Mark Anderson

When David Rockefeller passed away March 20 at the age of 101, the last of the five grandsons of oil titan John D. Rockefeller—besides David, they were John D. III, Winthrop, Lawrence and Nelson—left behind a “new world order,” something that this oil-and-banking dynastic family labored so heavily to build.

It’s instructive to keep in mind that Rockefeller, whose NWO efforts were partly done through his longtime presidency of Chase Manhattan Bank, was instrumental in solidifying the influence of the infamous Bilderberg Group.

Bilderberg is a highly secretive deep-state clique. It was formed in Holland in 1954 and meets annually in the most exclusive resorts, bringing together former and current government finance ministers, former and current NATO and other military heads, high-technology gurus, futurists, select royalty, top corporate titans, “think-tankers,” central bankers, and current and former legislators. It also includes carefully vetted media that participate in the Bilderberg meetings but honor their pledge not to report on the proceedings.

The meetings are surrounded by heavily armed private security guards and police forces. No other think tank or private consortium behaves in this manner.

Notably, there’s preliminary evidence that Bilderberg will return to the U.S. this year, possibly in Virginia, as it did in 2012. But as of this writing, that was not confirmed.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Rockefeller died the very day that the House Select Committee on Intelligence began probing whether Trump campaign officials and appointees and sundry allies colluded with Russian officials. The committee is seeking to confirm whether Russia indirectly hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails as well as those of John Podesta when he headed up Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president.

The apparent end-goal is to prove that Donald Trump would not have won the 2016 presidential election without Russia hacking emails and using the information to discredit Hillary Clinton and help ensure her loss.

Most of the committee’s members—gathering the spotty testimony of FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers—are alleging that private citizens (such as former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, longtime Republican strategist Roger Stone, and several others) in some manner colluded with Russia to discredit Mrs. Clinton and to influence U.S. policy toward Russia prior to Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration.

Ironically, the Bilderberg meetings, which the late Rockefeller was so instrumental in advancing, have for the last 63 years provided a perfect platform for U.S. citizens and U.S. government officials to curry favor, make deals, and share information with various current and former foreign government officials, central bankers, and high-level corporate heads from several nations—behind closed doors.

Interestingly, the Logan Act, a 1798 U.S. law that prohibits U.S. citizens from engaging in private deal-making and diplomacy with foreign officials, has been dusted off by intelligence committee members, who claim that some Trump allies have broken that law.

As AFP has established after decades following Bilderberg, it’d be much safer to say that the Bilderberg consortium has routinely skirted or broken the Logan Act. But when AFP contacted the FBI, CIA, and other federal agencies in writing four years ago about Bilderberg’s intrigues, and to find out whether U.S. tax dollars helped U.S. officials attend Bilderberg meetings, rather cryptic replies, professing utter denial of Bilderberg’s significance, arrived in AFP’s mailbox—even though the CIA itself played a role in Bilderberg’s formation.

Rockefeller was clearly aware that key media outlets involved in Bilderberg’s deep-state matrix—outlets that today are out for blood regarding the Trump White House—have long aided and abetted international intrigue and private collusion via their connection to the powerful global group.

Indeed, long before claims about “fake news” surfaced, Rockefeller, during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany, was reported to have said: “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years . . .  It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march toward a world government.”

While Rockefeller presided over the Bilderberg-connected Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think tank in the 70s and 80s, and while he remained a highly honored and influential CFR apparatchik for the rest of his life, this and other admissions of his showed that the real collusion—the kind that the FBI and NSA should truly take an interest in—has been happening in an ongoing fashion among globalist cliques and is hardly limited to whoever’s in the White House.

As Rockefeller later wrote in his dull tome, Memoirs: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Trump Needs to Jettison Iran Hawks Circling White House

A recent conference in Tehran attended by AFP underlined the global support for Palestine—and challenged President Donald Trump to stand up for the oppressed.

By Kevin Barrett

TEHRAN, Iran—The expression “Tehran conference” usually refers to the historic meeting of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin in November 1943. But a more recent Tehran conference—the Sixth International Conference on the Palestinian Intifada—held Feb. 21 and 22, may turn out to be just as historic.

Nearly 1,000 people from roughly 80 nations around the world, including heads of parliament and other high-level dignitaries, met in Tehran to vow all-out support for the Palestinian liberation struggle. And although all of Iran’s highest officials participated, including President Hassan Rouhani, Parliament Speaker Ali Laranjani, military chiefs Mohammed Bagheri and Mohammad Ali Jafari, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, it was Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei’s eloquent voice and long-term commitment to the Palestinian cause that carried the most weight.



This author was one of nine Americans participating as part of a non-governmental-organization sponsored sub-delegation of about 50 pro-Palestine alternative writers and intellectuals from around the world. The U.S. contingent spanned the ideological spectrum from the left (Sander Hicks) to the right (E. Michael Jones) with most falling somewhere in between.

Many of the U.S. participants have been marginalized in their own country for voicing strong anti-Zionist positions, including critiques of Jewish tribal power that are taboo in the West. People like E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars magazine, Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review, and Mark Glenn of Crescent and Cross are vilified and banned from mainstream discourse in the West, yet welcomed and appreciated in Iranian intellectual circles. Jones calls Tehran “the capital of the free world.”

Likewise, two anti-Zionist Naturei Karta rabbis, Yisroel Dovid Weiss and Ahron Cohen (whose car was destroyed in a 2014 arson attack), are despised and excluded from the American and British Jewish communities, yet wildly popular in Iran.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Khamenei opened the conference by laying out the problem in no uncertain terms: “[Israel’s] entity and identity are dependent on the gradual destruction of the entity and identity of Palestine.” In other words, Zionism equals genocide. Khamenei termed Zionism a “cancerous tumor” and said the cure is fearless resistance, which will, in stages, gradually put Israel into an untenable situation, leading to a peaceful ending of the Zionist experiment in aggression, wholesale theft of land and resources, and Jewish-superiority apartheid. All of the leading Palestinian resistance groups sent high-level representatives to the conference. These included Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

All of those sometimes feuding groups have managed to get on the same page during the past few months, thanks in part to the Iranian commitment to bringing together all the main currents of Palestinian freedom fighters. Hezbollah, the Lebanese group fighting Israeli occupation and ISIS, was also represented.



Iran’s commitment to unifying the world’s pro-Palestine forces is especially heroic given current political realities. In recent years, Israel has succeeded in consolidating its power not only in America and the West, but also in the backward, dictatorial portion of the Arab world. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil sheikhdoms are now openly allied with the Zionists.

Against this background, President Donald Trump and some of his advisors have taken extreme anti-Iran positions that conflict with the U.S. national interest. Two weeks after his inauguration, Trump called Iran “the world’s leading terrorist state.” Yet, in reality, Iran and its ally Hezbollah are the world’s leading fighters against the only two “Islamic” militant groups that target the West: al Qaeda and ISIS.

So why does Trump think Iran sponsors terrorism? Because his good friend Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his Zionist son-in-law Jared Kushner tell him so. The Zionists consider anti-Israel resistance groups “terrorists.”

Iran supports them. That is why the Zionist-dominated United States has gone along with Israeli efforts to label Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad “terrorists.”

The U.S. is shooting itself in the foot by siding with the Zionists against the people of the Middle East and the world. A Chinese delegate at the conference expressed shock when I told her I was from the United States.

“What?” she asked me. “You are from America? Why do the Iranians let you in?”

While American businesses are basically banned by their own Zionist-run government from trading with Tehran, other nations, led by the Chinese, are making money by dominating global trade with the Iranians, the most productive, technologically sophisticated people in the Middle East.

Will the Trump administration ultimately let go of its Iran hawks, like former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and decide to pursue America’s interests rather than those of Israel?

If that day ever comes, a whole lot more Americans—businessmen and tourists, not just dissident writers like this one—will be borrowing the book title from Flynt and Hillary Leverett and Going to Tehran.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western Wisconsin.

Amazon Bows to Pressure After Blitzkrieg Against Freedom of Speech

In early March, to the shock and dismay of free speech advocates around the world, Internet retail giant Amazon caved to pressure from special interest groups and mainstream news outlets and quietly pulled at least 100 political and historical books from its website. Read the report below to see which books were targeted.

By Paul Angel

“Who controls the past, controls the future,” or so said George Orwell in his prescient book 1984. He also warned that, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” Today, it seems the global thought censors are taking Mr. Orwell literally. As this week’s American Free Press went to press, we received word that, so far, hundreds of history books and e-publications have been removed in one fell swoop from the largest and most lucrative vending website in the world—, owned and run by Jeff Bezos (currently worth at least $73.4 billion, according to Forbes Magazine). Note that Amazon by itself accounted for 31% of all online sales on Cyber Weekend 2016 and 61% of all online sales growth in 2015, far surpassing all others.

Most of the books removed from Amazon deal with alternative views of World War II history, including hundreds of scholarly tomes by chemists, scientists, researchers, and philosophers who question taboo details about WWII that are illegal to discuss in a dozen or more European nations. Obviously, Bezos did not want to deal with this growing public relations nightmare. Revisionist historian Germar Rudolf, one of the world’s most reputable revisionist scholars, informed us that Castle Hill Publishers had 68 print books and 72 e-books removed for sale from Amazon.

Anti-Zionist Jewish philosopher Gerard Menuhin saw his book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil—a book about Zionist power—removed from Amazon in the blink of an eye. The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught About World War II by Michael King, a book touching on the role of the Rothschild in fomenting unrest in Europe before WWII, was also banned. Peter Winter’s The Six Million: Fact or Fiction, was specifically singled out by Yad Vashem, Israel’s official Holocaust museum, as particularly onerous. We expect more book burnings to come in the very near future.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

So how does one so efficiently carry out the biggest book banning since 60,000 titles were removed from the shelves of German libraries after World War II by the victorious powers? Who holds such power over companies like Amazon and Google and YouTube, who represent, together, net worths of somewhere approaching a trillion dollars?

Among other groups concerned about maintaining political correctness on the Internet, a group called the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BDBJ) takes partial credit, along with Yad Vashem and the World Jewish Congress. According to BDBJ VP Marie van der Zyl, “It is very welcome that Amazon has listened and removed the offending titles from their website. These are not works of historical integrity. They are an anti-Semitic attempt to exonerate the Nazis of their crimes and to stoke the fires of hatred.”

Historian Rudolf had this to say: “The sweeping mass ban enforced within hours, and the senseless aimlessness and random nature with which it was implemented, clearly show that these books were not pulled because their content was checked and found impermissible, but because someone (probably Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum) had sent [Bezos] a list of items to ban, and Amazon simply complied by checking off all the items on that list.”

Stay tuned and start receiving AFP’s electronic newsletters via email by signing up at American The issue of Internet censorship is evolving so rapidly, it’s the only way you’ll be able to keep up with the coming reportage we’ll be bringing you on this important story.

Paul Angel is a writer, graphic designer, and publisher and lives in Virginia.

Did Chinese Regime-Change Plot Lead to Assassination?

According to reports, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un may have found out about a planned coup to replace him with his brother, Kim Jong Nam, that was being orchestrated by the Chinese and ordered the murder of his brother.

By Richard Walker

The meticulously planned assassination in a Malaysian airport of Kim Jong Nam, the older half-brother of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, was like the plot of a spy novel, but missing from much of the coverage was the hidden hand of China.

Nam was casually making his way through Kuala Lumpur international airport on Feb. 13 to fly back to his home in Macau, a small Chinese territory best known for its gambling and high rollers, when his life came to an abrupt end within a span of 15 minutes. Two young local women, in what onlookers assumed was a prank, came up behind him, rubbed a cloth against his face and fled. Within minutes he was suffering from breathlessness, blurred vision, and nausea. Security staff moved him to a medical room where he collapsed and died. It was as if he had been bitten by one of the world’s deadliest snakes, but the substance that killed him was instead a highly toxic chemical weapon known as VX.

A colorless liquid, VX can only be weaponized in a miniature form by a highly sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory like those run by the major powers and a few nations like Israel and North Korea. There is no means of detecting it, making it easy to transport across national boundaries. There is also no known antidote.

Once it touches the skin or eyes, as it did in this case, death comes in minutes. VX can be used by the military in a gas form dispersed in missiles. A small quantity will kill an entire city’s population. Assassins have to be specially trained to transfer even a microscopic quantity to a cloth, as occurred in this case.

The two female assassins were patsies, who had been coached for their role. One claimed she was paid $90 and believed she was participating in a television prank. The two were quickly apprehended, but not the two four-man teams of North Korean intelligence operatives lurking nearby. One team left on a flight to North Korea shortly after the killing, and the one that stayed behind tried, but failed, to steal Nam’s corpse from the local coroner’s office.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Two hit teams would have been standard procedure of a kind frequently used by Mossad assassins.

One team would have remained close to the action, with the other ready at the last moment to deliver a lethal VX dose to Nam if the first attempt had failed.

The killing had echoes of Mossad’s botched attempt to kill Hamas leader Khaled Meschaal in 1977 in Amman, Jordan with a syringe filled with a chemical weapon, as well as the 2006 murder of defector Alexander Litvinenko in London. It is believed that Russian assassins slipped Litvinenko a miniscule dose of weaponized polonium 210—an atomic element—by putting it in his tea at a meeting in a London hotel.

So how did Kim Jong Un come to order the murder of his older half-brother, who had once been their late father Kim Jong Il’s choice to succeed him? First, one has to examine the Kim family history. Nam fell out of favor with his father after he tried to leave the country with his family for a trip to Disneyland, using bogus Portuguese passports. The matter became an international scandal, and in 2001 he was forced into exile.

While he traveled a lot, Nam had a wife and children in Macau under the watchful eyes of its Chinese overlords. While he had a reputation for gambling, it was exaggerated in the mass media.

In fact, he was well read and became openly critical of the dynastic rule of his half-brother. He spent most of his life in top hotels in Macau, but his family remained in a seaside villa.

He was aware his opposition to the North Korean regime might result in assassins being sent to eliminate him. Friends say he pleaded with his brother to leave him and his family alone. He was often accompanied by two female bodyguards and was advised not to stray far from Macau where the Chinese could watch him. He believed that since rich North Koreans gambled in Macau, hid money in its banks, and bought Western goods there, his half-brother would not jeopardize that arrangement by killing him there.

According to a British intelligence source who spoke to this writer on condition of anonymity, in the past year China became so concerned about Un’s erratic behavior and missile launches that it began to imagine a North Korea without him. It was convinced North Koreans would accept Nam as a dynastic replacement.

While China ruminated about how to get rid of Un, it is believed that his spies discovered what they were up to. The story is Un decided to outsmart the Chinese and strike first. By killing his potential successor in Malaysia, and not on Chinese territory, he ensured that China had no grounds to retaliate diplomatically by closing off Macau to North Koreans.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former television producer who now writes exclusively for AMERICAN FREE PRESS.

Wikileaks Opens ‘Vault 7’ Exposing CIA Hacking, Cyber Spy Tools

Earlier this month, the international whistleblowing organization, Wikileaks, released information that it had been handed millions of lines of code that the CIA uses to spy on governments, individuals, and organizations around the world.

By John Friend

In early March, WikiLeaks—the notorious international non-profit organization that works with whistleblowers, hackers, and other anonymous individuals to expose secret and classified information detailing government corruption and malfeasance—published the first installment of what has been described as the largest ever collection of secret government and intelligence files, all of which pertain to the CIA, America’s top spy agency.

The data dump, code-named “Vault 7” by WikiLeaks, includes thousands of secret CIA documents detailing a rogue agency that has focused much of its attention and resources on hacking, spying, and cyber-warfare but failed to secure and protect their capabilities. The initial release of secret documents, totaling 8,761 files originating from “an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Va.,” is known as “Year Zero,” and exposes a variety of arguably illegal and certainly concerning CIA activities, according to a press release published by WikiLeaks.

“‘Year Zero’ introduces the scope and direction of the CIA’s global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of ‘zero day’ weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, including Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones,” WikiLeaks’ press release describing its latest data dump states. “Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized ‘zero day’ exploits, malware remote control systems, and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

In a press conference announcing and highlighting the findings of the initial publication of the documents associated with “Vault 7,” WikiLeaks founder and chief spokesman Julian Assange charged the CIA with “devastating incompetence” for failing to protect and secure their hacking secrets, and pledged to work with various technology companies to address the vulnerabilities.

“This is a historic act of devastating incompetence, to have created such an arsenal and then stored it all in one place,” Assanged averred. “It is impossible to keep effective control of cyber weapons. . . If you build them, eventually you will lose them.”

Assange went on to note that his organization possessed “a lot more information” about the CIA’s cyber warfare operations, which include its hacking and surveillance capabilities, malware systems, and viruses, and vowed to wait to release the information until technology companies and manufacturers had been consulted.

“We have decided to work with them [tech companies] to give them some exclusive access to the additional technical details we have so fixes can be developed and then pushed out,” Assange stated. “Once this material is effectively disarmed by us we will publish additional details about what has been occurring.”

Of particular importance in the recent WikiLeaks disclosures is the fact that the CIA, especially since 9/11, has developed “its own substantial fleet of hackers,” according to the press release published by WikiLeaks announcing the initial release of “Vault 7.”

“The agency’s hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA’s hacking capacities,” the press release states. “By the end of 2016, the CIA’s hacking division, which formally falls under the agency’s Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5,000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other ‘weaponized’ malware. Such is the scale of the CIA’s undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its ‘own NSA’ with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.”

Glenn Greenwald, a journalist close to Assange who worked with Edward Snowden to expose a variety of shady and illegal U.S. government spying operations, recently appeared on the BBC to weigh in on the latest revelations by WikiLeaks.

“One very significant revelation is that the CIA actively encourages and at times even pays various companies and organizations to preserve vulnerabilities that they are able to exploit in a lot of these software programs, which means that not only they can go through these ‘backdoors’ that they make sure exist, but so can hacker groups or terrorist organizations or other nation states and it shows the CIA, like the NSA, is making the Internet more unsafe for everyone, and I think that’s very disturbing,” Greenwald noted.

WikiLeaks’ primary source for the secret CIA documents that have and will be released argues these issues “urgently need to be debated in public,” and aims “to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation, and democratic control of cyberweapons.”

Given the secrecy surrounding the CIA and the power it has amassed since its creation, getting to the bottom of all of this will no doubt prove to be a major challenge. Do not expect the CIA and other deep state actors to willingly cooperate with WikiLeaks.

John Friend is a writer and lives in California.

Soros Behind Lawsuits Designed to Keep Borders Porous, Unsafe

Is anyone really surprised that, behind efforts to undermine everything that is good and righteous in the United States, the familiar hand—and money—of billionaire slash-and-burn speculator George Soros is found? He broke the Bank of England and was prosecuted in France, yet the scheming globalist keeps popping up in the U.S.

By John Friend

On Jan. 27, President Donald Trump signed what has proved to be an extremely controversial executive order that temporarily bans visas and entry to the United States for individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries that are vulnerable to terrorism. The countries, which include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, had previously been identified by the Obama administration as countries whose citizens deserved closer scrutiny and a stronger vetting process before being granted a visa and entry into the United States.

The hostile mass media and leftist activists were quick to denounce Trump’s rational and commonsense executive order as a blanket “Muslim ban,” stirring up echoes of racism and oppression. Protests were organized across the country at numerous major airports, while political leaders of both parties as well as some government bureaucrats and officials voiced their opposition and attempted to set up roadblocks to implementing and complying with Trump’s executive order.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Trump’s order has also run into countless legal and political obstacles, as federal judges have ruled the order is unconstitutional, while lawyers representing the Trump administration argue the order is well within the rights and duties of the executive branch.

Dozens of state attorneys general, mostly from states run by Democrats, as well as countless private legal organizations, including the ACLU, have brought lawsuits against the Trump administration relating to the executive order.

As was the case with many of the leading organizations that planned and organized the high-profile protests against Trump’s inauguration, it appears many of the legal challenges currently facing the Trump administration have been funded and instigated by left-wing billionaire agitator George Soros and other radical leftist activists.

“It shouldn’t surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America,” Matthew Vadum, who serves as senior vice president of Capitol Research Center, a D.C.-based think tank, recently stated. “Soros has said he wants to bring America down. Flooding the country with Muslim aliens who won’t assimilate is one way to do that.”

The uproar actually began only days after Trump signed the order.

On Jan. 30, Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting U.S. attorney general who had been appointed by former President Obama and was set to serve in the position until Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump’s pick to head the Justice Department, was officially confirmed. Ms. Yates openly defied the president and refused to enforce his order. What did she think was going to happen? Did she believe the White House would back down?

Following Ms. Yates’s dismissal, the Trump team chose Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to replace the disgraced former acting attorney general, who Trump argued had “betrayed” the U.S. government and American people. Boente served as attorney general until Sessions was officially confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 8.

“Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,” the Trump administration declared in a statement released following Ms. Yates’s termination. “It is time to get serious about protecting our country.”

The hysteria and mindless fury generated as a result of Trump’s executive order demonstrates once again the extreme hostility the mass media and political establishment have toward the Trump administration and its America-first mindset. Trump’s executive order is essentially following a proposal originally put forth and implemented by the Obama administration, which did not generate nearly as much controversy as Trump has with his recent order.

“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,” Trump said in an official White House statement. “The seven countries named in the executive order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

Trump went on to emphasize that his order is “not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.”

“This is not about religion. This is about terror and keeping our country safe,” Trump stated.

“There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.”

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.

Netanyahu Goes to Washington to Meet Trump

President Donald Trump will be hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday at the White House in a high-stakes meeting that could test their longstanding relationship given Trump’s recent criticism in the Israeli press of unchecked Israeli land thefts and the construction of illegal Israeli settlements.

By Dave Gahary

A meeting that’s set to take place on Feb. 15 between President Donald J. Trump and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, will set the stage for what a future Palestinian homeland will—or will not—look like. The two “are expected to discuss settlements, the potential to revive peace talks and the Iran nuclear deal, among other topics.”

American Free Press sat down with author and analyst Greg Felton, whose book, The Host & the Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America, is considered by many to be the definitive account of how the Israel lobby hijacked U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast.

After Netanyahu called Trump on Nov. 9, 2016, to congratulate him on his stunning electoral victory, the president-elect invited Israel’s leader “to meet with him in the United States at the earliest opportunity.”

“It’s going to be one of those meetings that is probably going to be very, very disturbing for anybody who hopes that Donald Trump will put an end to the abject Zionist sycophancy of all previous administrations,” said Felton.

United Nations Resolution 2334, which was adopted 44 days after the invitation, guaranteed that the meeting would be anything but typical.

On Dec. 23, 2016, the U.S. abstained from a vote on a UN Security Council resolution that condemned Israeli settlements, “the first resolution on settlements to pass in 36 years.”

To reverse the resolution “would require a follow-up vote that avoids a veto from the U.S., Britain, China, France or Russia—a highly unlikely scenario given the current stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process,” reported the Associated Press (AP). “Given the world’s widespread opposition to settlements,” continued AP, “the action will be almost impossible for anyone, including Trump, to reverse.”

The resolution stated “that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

“Loud applause erupted in the council chamber after U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power permitted the resolution to pass,” said the AP.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Netanyahu’s reprisals were almost instant. He recalled the Israeli ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal and cancelled a planned January visit to Israel by a Senegalese official. To add insult to injury, he ended all Israeli aid programs to Senegal.

A Palestinian official “hailed the result as a ‘victory for the justice of the Palestinian cause.’ He said Trump’s choice was now between ‘international legitimacy’ or siding with ‘settlers and extremists,’” reported AP.

The resolution also states that Israel is violating “its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.”

“Yeah, that’s true,” said Felton, “but this is not really news. Israel’s been violating the Geneva Convention since it started.”

Felton elaborated upon the significance of the resolution:

“The resolution itself is very important, as it affirms the legal basis for Palestinians’ existence and the essential criminality of Israel, but it doesn’t say anything that isn’t already well known. What is interesting about it—what makes it important—is that the U.S. abstained on it. Had it not done so, it would have legalized, legitimized, the expansion of Jewish settlements in to Palestinian land.”

Trump, for his part, has telegraphed that he will be much more sympathetic to Israel’s wishes on the settlement issue, and he made no mention during his presidential campaign regarding a Palestinian state, “a core policy objective of Democratic and Republican presidents over the past two decades.” He promised to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv (he’s already back-tracking), which is sure to create more bloodshed, and he chose American-Jewish bankruptcy lawyer David Melech Friedman as ambassador to Israel, a donor and vociferous supporter of settlements.

AFP asked Felton how the Mideast peace process will be affected by Trump.

“Donald Trump and the Zionist community go back a long way,” he said. “His family married into a Jewish family and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is a pro-settlement Zionist. In fact, he is part owner, part financier, of a settlement in Israel. So here we have a settlement son-in-law and a president who nominated a settlement zealot [David Friedman] to be an ambassador to Israel. I don’t think there’s been a president who has been so enamored of an Israeli leader. All previous leaders of America have despised the Zionists for what they do to America, and they go through the ritual of being the subservient governor of the Empire, because that’s what they have to do to stay in power. But Trump is a little bit different. He is emotionally invested in Israel, and that is frightening for the world.”

Surprisingly, on Feb. 10, while speaking to the Hebrew-language newspaper Israel Hayom, Trump said settlements were an obstacle to peace.

“I am not somebody that believes that going forward with these settlements is a good thing for peace,” he told the paper. “Every time you take land for settlements, there is less land left.”

AFP asked Felton for his analysis on this move.

“Every president in the history of the United States since 1967 has condemned the Zionist expansion to Palestine,” Felton said, “and each president has been treated with gross disrespect by Israel. They have been actively ignored, insulted, denigrated, and humiliated. What makes Trump different is that he doesn’t care; he is on board with this and he is the first, I think, pro-settlement president in the history of the country. The fact that Trump is enthusiastically pro-settlement is of great concern.”

In fact, since Trump’s inauguration, “Netanyahu has announced more than 5,000 settlement homes, as well as the first new settlement for more than 20 years.

“Instead of a political arrangement between the Empire of Israel imposing its will on the United States,” continued Felton, “we’re gonna have a sycophantic American government actively enjoying its relationship with Israel. We’re gonna have Donald Trump isolate the United States ever more because of his refusal to uphold international law and behave like a responsible adult.”

Netanyahu is facing extreme pressure from the extremists in Israel.

Education Minister Naftali Bennett, the chair of the far-right Jewish Home Party, said “Trump’s victory meant the idea of a Palestinian state was over,” and has regularly called for the annexation of much of the West Bank.

On Feb. 11 he wrote on Facebook that the “meeting with Trump will be ‘the test of Netanyahu’s life’ and will determine Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians for years to come.” He warned “that if the two men mention an obligation to establish Palestine or two states in some or other iteration, we will all feel it in our flesh for years to come. It will be an earthquake.”

Felton commented on Bennett’s warning to Netanyahu:

“One of the sad things of Israel is that the original Israelis—if you can call them that—behind the 1967 boundaries, are now a minority in the Knesset, Felton explained. “All power really rests with the rabid, psychopathic, East European settler community, and Bennett is part of that community. They want to commit mass murder. They want a Nazi holocaust against Palestine. Now, of course the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ in history is grossly exaggerated, and in fact misrepresented. According to the settler mentality, any respect, any acknowledgment of Palestine, even respect for Palestinian life is considered a blasphemy against their pseudo-religion. And so we have the settlers threatening, bizarrely, probably the most neo-fascist prime minister in history to be even crueler to Palestine, essentially blackmailing the prime minister.

“I would think that Netanyahu wouldn’t disavow [the two-state solution], because that would make him out to be a liar,” Felton continued. “He just stated support for the two-state solution—however vacuous that may be—then he has to admit that everything Israel has ever done has been a lie, and that will do more to give support to Palestine. Are Americans gonna stand by and watch a wholesale slaughter of civilians take place? Well, if the media doesn’t report, probably.”

Dave Gahary is a writer for AFP and lives in Florida.

A Coming Clash With Iran

Americans do not want another war. So why did President Donald Trump make the mistake of drawing a line in the sand in regard to Iran’s legal missile test? Will this turn into the same humiliation that President Obama suffered after threatening Syria, or is this the start of provocations that will lead to a disastrous war with Iran?

By Patrick Buchanan

When Gen. Michael Flynn marched into the White House Briefing Room to declare that “we are officially putting Iran on notice,” he drew a red line for President Trump. In tweeting the threat, Trump agreed. His credibility is now on the line. And what triggered this virtual ultimatum?

Iran-backed Houthi rebels, said Flynn, attacked a Saudi warship and Tehran tested a missile, undermining “security, prosperity, and stability throughout the Middle East,” placing “American lives at risk.”

But how so?

The Saudis have been bombing the Houthi rebels and ravaging their country, Yemen, for two years. Are the Saudis entitled to immunity from retaliation in wars that they start?

Where is the evidence Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the Saudi ship? And why would President Trump make this war his war?

As for the Iranian missile test, a 2015 UN resolution “called upon” Iran not to test nuclear-capable missiles. It did not forbid Iran from testing conventional missiles, which Tehran insists this was.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Is the United States making new demands on Iran not written into the nuclear treaty or international law—to provoke a confrontation?

Did Flynn coordinate with our allies about this warning of possible military action against Iran? Is NATO obligated to join any action we might take?

Or are we going to carry out any retaliation alone, as our NATO allies observe, while the Israelis, Gulf Arabs, Saudis, and the Beltway War Party, which wishes to be rid of Trump, cheer him on?

Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the UN resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?

The Saudi king spoke with Trump Sunday. Did he persuade the president to get America more engaged against Iran?

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker is among those delighted with the White House warning:

“No longer will Iran be given a pass for its repeated ballistic missile violations, continued support of terrorism, human rights abuses, and other hostile activities that threaten international peace and security.”

The problem with making a threat public—Iran is “on notice”—is that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to back away.

Tehran seems almost obliged to defy it, especially the demand that it cease testing conventional missiles for its own defense.

This U.S. threat will surely strengthen those Iranians opposed to the nuclear deal and who wish to see its architects, President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, thrown out in this year’s elections.

If Rex Tillerson is not to become a wartime secretary of state like Colin Powell or Dean Rusk, he is going to have to speak to the Iranians, not with defiant declarations, but in a diplomatic dialogue.

Tillerson, of course, is on record as saying the Chinese should be blocked from visiting the half-dozen fortified islets they have built on rocks and reefs in the South China Sea.

A prediction: The Chinese will not be departing from their islands, and the Iranians will defy the U.S. threat against testing their missiles.

Wednesday’s White House statement makes a collision with Iran almost unavoidable, and a war with Iran quite possible.

Why did Trump and Flynn feel the need to do this now?

There is an awful lot already on the foreign policy plate of the new president after only two weeks, as pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again and North Korea’s nuclear missile threat, which, unlike Iran’s, is real, has yet to be addressed.

High among the reasons that many supported Trump was his understanding that George W. Bush blundered horribly in launching an unprovoked and unnecessary war on Iraq.

Along with the 15-year war in Afghanistan and our wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, our 21st-century U.S. Mideast wars have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of dead. And they have produced a harvest of hatred of America that was exploited by al Qaida and ISIS to recruit jihadists to murder and massacre Westerners.


Osama bin Laden’s greatest achievement was not to bring down the twin towers and kill 3,000 Americans, but to goad America into plunging headlong into the Middle East, a reckless and ruinous adventure that ended her post-Cold War global primacy.

Unlike the other candidates, Trump seemed to recognize this.

It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it, Obama discovered that his countrymen wanted no part of the war that his military action might bring on.

President Obama backed down—in humiliation.

Neither the Ayatollah Khamenei nor Trump appears to be in a mood to back away, especially now that the president has made the threat public.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

The Battle for Jerusalem

President Donald Trump’s America-first policies are a breath of fresh air after decades of policies that were devastating to middle-class Americans. But his unquestioning support of Israel has many people concerned that his views are emboldening the Israelis to step up crimes against the Palestinians and Arabs who live inside Israel.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

Several Middle Eastern cities have seen fierce battles during recent years. Syria’s recapture of Aleppo last month was only the latest example. Many other Syrian, Iraqi, and Yemeni cities have also been devastated or destroyed in endemic urban warfare. But all of these battles are really just skirmishes. There is only one major contested city in the Middle East, and that is Jerusalem, known in Arabic as al-Quds, “the Holy City.” It is around this battle that all other warfare in the region revolves.

The hardline Zionists running Israel are determined to finish ethnically cleansing Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. They view Jerusalem as the “eternal undivided capital” of Greater Israel, their supposedly God-given real estate tract stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. And they will stop at nothing in pursuit of its conquest.

The rest of the region, and the world, is resisting. The international community agrees with the Palestinian leadership that Israel is illegally occupying East Jerusalem and must withdraw. That is why no U.S. president has ever agreed to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If President Donald Trump follows through on his stated intention to move the embassy, he could set off an explosion of bloodshed that will make the past few decades look like a peaceful golden age by comparison.

To understand how the battles for Aleppo, Mosul, Damascus, Fallujah, Daraa, Hama, Homs, Tripoli, Sana’a, and so many other Middle Eastern cities are actually skirmishes in the larger battle for Jerusalem, we need to consider the historical background.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Jerusalem is the heart of the Holy Land for all Abrahamic monotheists, including nearly 2.5 billion Christians, more than 1.5 billion Muslims, and slightly fewer than 15 million Jews. That means that, out of every 267 people for whom Jerusalem is a holy city, 266 are either Christian or Muslim, while only one is Jewish. Yet within that tiny Jewish minority of monotheists, an even tinier minority known as Zionists has managed to orchestrate the invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of the Holy Land, expelling most of the Christians and Muslims who lived there, subjugating or killing the rest, and setting up an ever-expanding Jewish-superiority state in which non-Jews are second-class citizens.

The 1948 Nakba (Palestinian holocaust) and the 1967 Zionist war of aggression were the two key historical moments when the Zionists grabbed Jerusalem. In 1948 they took West Jerusalem, storming the rest in 1967. Though Israeli leaders assert they are only holding 1967-stolen land as a bargaining chip for peace (i.e., Palestinians permanently surrendering any claim to the land stolen in 1948) the reality is that they have never intended to relinquish Jerusalem, which is why they keep expelling Palestinians and building settlements.

Stealing the Holy City, after all, was the main reason they launched the 1967 war in the first place.

So what does this have to do with the devastation in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya? The Middle East has been destabilized by the Zionist colonial incursion. Throughout the region, ordinary people are unanimously opposed to Zionism.

But ruling elites have been bribed and bullied to surrender to the Zionists against the wishes of their people. The resulting turmoil has bred instability and radicalization.

The neocon Zionists tried to redraw the map of the Middle East with their 9/11 coup d’état, which was designed, as Gen. Wesley Clark revealed, to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran.” All seven of these countries had leaders who refused to surrender to Zionism. So they were slated by the Zionists for destruction, using a U.S. military hijacked by the 9/11 false-flag operation.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was designed to destroy that nation as a technologically and economically advanced state. “ISIS,” informally known as Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, continues to pursue the same mission in Syria as well.


The Saudi royals and other gulf leaders have joined the Zionist onslaught on the remaining independent (anti-Zionist) forces in the region, including in Syria, Yemen, and—the big prize—Iran.

Why? Because like the Zionists, the Saudi royals and other Persian Gulf despots depend on U.S. and Israeli backing. An independent Middle East would spell doom for the rulers in Riyadh as well as the leaders in Tel Aviv.

Shortly before Christmas, the Obama administration helped pass a UN resolution re-stating the U.S. and international position: Israeli settlements on land stolen in the 1967 war are illegal, and Israel must withdraw from that land, including Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went ballistic—and expanded settlement projects.

Now, with Trump backing Netanyahu, we are between a Dome of the Rock and a hard place. Let us all pray that Zionist belligerence does not explode into World War III.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western Wisconsin.


Corporate executives, top bankers, global speculators, and power brokers at the annual Alpine retreat in Davos, Switzerland are complaining openly that the rise of populism and nationalism across the United State and Europe is a serious threat to globalism and the New World Order. Ending globalization is apparently hitting them in the pocketbook.

By Mark Anderson

Many of the gilded glitterati gathering in Davos, Switzerland amid the towering Alps for the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) see the populism sweeping much of the world as a fascinating trend. They certainly enjoy talking about it. But their academic chitter-chatter is starting to take on a panicked tone over the implications of the common man demanding a better life—a life without poverty in the face of plenty and without nonstop unwinnable wars, among other vexing problems.

Even before this year’s WEF started on Jan. 17, American public television personality Charlie Rose—a frequent attendee of the much more exclusive Bilderberg meetings that AFP has doggedly covered since 1975—was interviewing several guests about this topic on his well-known talk show, as this AFP reporter flipped on the TV during recent travels. Rose’s esteemed guests fretted over several trends that suggest there’s a devolution from globalism in the works—call it “de-globalization.”

Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas and Chicago Council on Global Affairs President Ivo Daalder in early December 2016 confided to Rose that they’ve got the jitters over the current populist surge, most visibly represented by brash businessman Donald J. Trump’s ascent to the presidency—and above all by what his election says about the worldview of a sizable cross section of the American people. Simply put: Globalization is losing its grip on the human psyche.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Daalder feebly tried to say that largely unregulated “integration” is the Western “tradition,” without mentioning that the kind of forcible integration that’s taking place—largely due to wars waged by Western powers that force people out of their homelands and into places they wouldn’t otherwise live, in most cases—creates cultural clashes, crime, and upheaval. This could all be avoided if world government promoters would chill out on trying to mold the world according to their portfolios and to their impractical, sometimes demented visions of world governance.

Rock band U2’s vocalist, Bono, and Ian Brenner of the Eurasia Group were among other guests on Rose’s show in early January. They, too, greeted the populist revival with a mix of fascination and barely muted alarm.

So, silver-spoon WEF attendees—and the likeminded corporate media that usually does their bidding—are acknowledging more than ever before that populism is undermining what’s typically called globalism. This is the credo practiced by those who want to knit the world into a singular economic-political-cultural construct lacking the rich and varied landscape that can only be produced by a world of distinct nation-states with unique cultures.

In other words, if money can’t buy you true love, perhaps it also cannot ultimately buy total world-rule, either, because there’s something in human nature that naturally rejects a mechanistic existence that lacks heart and soul and a real sense of heritage.

This doesn’t mean, though, that those bent on world-rule are about to flatline. The private, usurious central banking system that stole the people’s credit and put everyone’s land and labor in hock is their chief weapon. Without it, their press control would shrivel and the rest of their influence would wane to, or almost to, the breaking point. But at least real freedom-seekers know that key monetary and financial reforms of the proper sort are the core pathway to ending the “new world order.”


“Davos Glitter in the Gloom of Populism” topped the front page of the Jan. 17 New York Times on the first day of the WEF, which runs through Jan. 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration as the 45th U.S. president—the first one ever so clearly defined as a “populist.” The Times sub-headline added: “Elites grapple with working-class rage.”

The article itself noted that the 2017 WEF attendees included Bilderbergers like International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde and Microsoft co-founder-turned-“philanthropist” Bill Gates, along with smug mattoids like JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon and film stars like Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie. Also attending this year’s Davos event is Chinese president Xi Jinping, who reportedly stated that populism, defined as “support for the concerns of ordinary people,” is seen as a threat to globalism.

Populism is basically a system wherein people of all classes and creeds, from the bottom up and not the top down, secure their share in the economic pie and are therefore ensured upward mobility in alliance with secure voting rights and the ability to effect change, while having the freedom to preserve their property—and their family, community, and ethnic-national heritage—without undue “political correctness” fouling up the works. In its purest form, populism opposes business monopolies and vaguely defined free-market ideologies, especially predatory banking, and therefore seeks an economic democracy. It’s not precisely right-wing, nor is it left-wing.

The above-noted Times article succumbed to the realization that the elites’ long-sought notion of world government may be fundamentally doomed.

Each year, the WEF crowd talks (mainly on the basis of global investment-class perspectives) about their typical topics of climate change, inequality, and the economic challenges facing developing and emerging nations. But, as the Times continued, “Missing from these high-minded conversations have been meaningful challengers or critics of the underlying theme that was seemingly stipulated from the birth of this (WEF) 46 years ago: Globalization has the potential to benefit everyone.”

Of particular note, the Times piece quoted economist John Mauldin as saying: “Trump’s election victory is a clear indication that the majority of people are not interested in a world government, but want to return to a classical local democracy. Strange as it may seem to the Davos men, most people tend to love their ‘patria,’ the land of their fathers.”

This is not to say that all WEF attendees are deluded power-mongers or vain pseudo-intellectuals. Many have considerable expertise in various fields and clearly have some worthwhile perspectives and ideas to share, especially in the technological realm. Their problem, however, is philosophical, not intellectual.


Several other recent headlines from big media outlets similarly represent the same basic admission by the plutocratic oligarchy (rule by the rich few who constitute “the establishment”) that they are on particularly shaky ground due to the populist tremors emanating from recent events including the pending Trump presidency, the June 23, 2016 affirmative “Brexit” vote that, if fully consummated, would allow the UK to officially exit the European Union, from the prospect of noted populist candidate Marie Le Pen gaining even more political ground in France, and so on.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor and has covered the last few Bilderberg gatherings since the death of James P. Tucker Jr.

Still No Evidence Russia Was Behind Cybercrimes

Don’t believe all of the hype surrounding the newly released cybercrimes report by federal law enforcement that supposedly provides details on the Russian connection to criminal hacking. There is still no evidence that Russian spies or the military were behind breaking into the email accounts of Democrats and/or U.S. electoral systems.

By Sydney Johnson

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report yesterday, purportedly providing details and even evidence that Russian intelligence was behind the hacking of top Democrat officials and the U.S. electoral board. The Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity” is available to read here.

After getting busted for lying to the American public about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, you would think that Washington officials would be on guard against making unsubstantiated claims concerning foreign powers. However, upon reading the latest JAR—it is only 13 pages—it is clear that the White House is blaming Russia with zero evidence that Russian officials were linked to the computer crimes. Worse still, President Barack Obama has imposed economic sanctions on Russia and ordered dozens of Russian diplomats to leave the country—all on the presumption that we should just trust what U.S. authorities claim.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

It is common knowledge that all countries spy on each other, and it would be grossly naïve to deny that countries, including Russia, hack into computer systems maintained by foreign powers.

The U.S. is particularly bad when it comes to snooping on foreign officials, even so-called friends and allies. This was exposed in 2013 when American intelligence officials were embarrassed after Edward Snowden released official documents taken from the National Security Agency that showed the federal agency spied on everything and everyone, even going so far as to steal medical records from international nongovernmental agencies so U.S. officials could snoop on foreigners.

The U.S. media has been in a tizzy these past 24 hours, breathlessly reporting that the JAR laid out the U.S. government’s evidence that the Russians were behind the hacking.

The Hill, a Washington, D.C. daily, at least noted that “security experts say that the document provides little in the way of forensic ‘proof’ to confirm the government’s attribution.” However, the daily amended that, adding: “Private security firms—like CrowdStrike, who investigated the DNC breach—went much further, they say.”

The claim is that the Russian government is somehow and in some way linked to the two supposedly sophisticated groups—APT28 and APT29—that, among other things, installed malware and then conned top Democrats like Clinton campaign advisor John Podesta into turning over passwords. But these purportedly highly sophisticated groups were then stupid enough to leave bread crumbs back to a Russian server, implicating themselves in the crimes?

AFP recently interviewed the owner of one of those servers. He said that he had tracked IP addresses to Europe, but no one in the U.S. was interested in his information.

The truth is, there is still nothing linking the Russian government or any of its military or intelligence agencies to the hackers who leaked damning emails revealing that the Democratic Party had conspired to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) in favor of Hillary Clinton.


Those who claim that the JAR proves Russian hacking likely either never read it or, if they did take the few minutes to look through it, did not understand it.

You would think that, by now, most in the mainstream media would be skeptical when their government simply states, “Hey, you’ve got to trust us.”

Sadly, however, this is not the case.

Sydney Johnson is a reporter who lives in Washington, D.C.