Populist Presidential Candidate Marine Le Pen Advances in French Elections

France’s first round of presidential voting is over, and the news is surely alarming to globalists and EU-firsters everywhere. Marine Le Pen of the populist, right-wing National Front Party has come in second place, having secured the votes of 7 million of her countrymen who agree it’s time to put France first and shut down the massive immigration that threatens to forever change the French culture. 

By John Friend

Two political outsiders will face off in the second round of the French presidential election after no candidate won a majority in the first round of voting, which wrapped up this past Sunday, April 23.

Centrist Emmanuel Macron, who represents En Marche! (On the Move!), a relatively new political movement that only formed in April 2016, will compete against Marine Le Pen, long associated with the National Front, a right-wing, populist party that is critical of the European Union and mass immigration, after the two outsiders came in first and second, respectively, in the first round of voting.

The first round of voting took place during a state of emergency declared by the French government following the alleged ISIS-inspired terrorist attack on the Champs-Elysees, the world-renowned boulevard in the heart of Paris. A French policeman was reportedly killed during the attack, which occurred just days before the first round of voting. Two other French police officers were allegedly wounded during the attack before the attacker, reportedly inspired and affiliated with ISIS, was shot and killed by police.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The National Front, which is regularly vilified and demonized by France’s political and media elite, has only two members of parliament and little political support among other more mainstream parties and leaders. Macron’s En Marche! has no representation in parliament, yet is viewed as a more centrist political party compared to Ms. Le Pen’s nationalistic National Front. Macron, who at the young age of 39 has formerly served as a deputy secretary-general under President François Hollande’s first Socialist government in 2012 and later went on to serve as minister of economy, industry, and digital affairs in 2014 under Prime Minister Manuel Valls, is a former banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque and is viewed by critics as a pro-European Union globalist.

The two political outsiders each won over 20% of the popular vote in the first round of voting, besting their more established political rivals. Macron secured 23.8% of the vote, netting well over 8 million total votes, while Ms. Le Pen secured 21.7% of the vote, attracting well over 7 million total votes.

François Fillon, the center-right candidate whose campaign was plagued by scandalous accusations of abuse of public funds after it was alleged his wife and children were paid public money for work they either never did or were unqualified to do, has encouraged his voters to back Macron, as has Benoit Hamon, the Socialist candidate. Combined, Fillon and Hamon received over 9 million votes, votes both Macron and Ms. Le Pen will be vying for in the second round showdown, currently scheduled to take place on May 7.

Hollande, the current president of France, has also encouraged voters to support Macron in the second round of voting, saying Ms. Le Pen and the National Front “deeply divide France.” Ethnic and minority groups have also targeted Ms. Le Pen and the National Front, vilifying them as “racist” and “xenophobic” for their nationalistic stances on issues such as immigration.

Francis Kalifat, the leader of CRIF, an umbrella group of French Jewish communities, has described Ms. Le Pen as a “candidate of hate,” and has urged his community and other French voters to support Macron regardless of his policies in order to prevent a nationalist from becoming president of the French republic.

Liberty Stickers

In a move that has surprised many of her supporters, Ms. Le Pen recently announced she is stepping down as leader of the National Front in order to focus on the upcoming presidential election. The National Front has long been a polarizing feature of French political life, and Ms. Le Pen has worked carefully to counter that image by expelling hardliners from the party, including her own father, who founded the organization.

“Tonight, I am no longer the president of the National Front. I am the presidential candidate,” Ms. Le Pen declared while making her announcement on France 2, a public television news outlet. “I will feel more free and above partisan considerations.”

While the establishment appears to be supporting Macron, Ms. Le Pen and her supporters are optimistic. In an interview in late January, Ms. Le Pen described Macron as an “ideal” candidate to face off with.

“A runoff between a patriot such as myself and a caricature of a diehard globalist like him is ideal,” Ms. Le Pen said at the time. “It’s a gift.”

Nationalists across the world will be closely watching the second round of the French presidential election, especially nationalists in France concerned about the future of their people and nation. France, like most Western European nations, has seen astonishing levels of immigration from Africa and the Middle East, resulting in rampant crime, rioting, and unrest while the traditional French population is replaced with foreigners.

“This is the last French struggle, and we don’t have much chance to defeat globalism and reverse the white genocide that is happening here, whether demographically or culturally,” Electre, a French nationalist and activist, recently explained to AFP. “If Marine Le Pen doesn’t win now, by the time of the next elections the foreign population—which is already out-breeding French natives—will have grown so much that the local white votes won’t be able to counter foreign votes.”

Electre noted she and other French nationalists will vote for Ms. Le Pen, but many are fearful that Ms. Le Pen will ultimately let down nationalists by compromising with globalist, anti-French forces.

“Even if she manages to be elected, the nationalist struggle will still not be over, because the National Front has essentially become another Republican Party,” Electre explained. “She’s definitely less toxic than all of the other candidates, yet I don’t really trust her to save the country, because if you betray your own father, to whom you owe everything, what’s holding you back from betraying your people and nation?”

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.

Why Did Trump Betray Campaign Pledges on Syria, Assad, Russia?

World leaders are questioning the veracity of claims Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own citizens—and the legality of the U.S.’s retaliatory cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base. In the U.S., citizens who supported Donald Trump during his presidential campaign are now questioning the veracity of his pledge to follow a non-interventionist policy when it comes to America’s military.

By John Friend

Betraying his campaign pledges to pursue an America-first foreign policy and entirely contradicting his previous criticisms of America’s disastrous foreign policy in the Middle East—epitomized by the endless wars based on lies and false “intelligence” being waged against various Muslim countries in the region—President Donald Trump launched an airstrike targeting a Syrian airbase that was allegedly home to the Syrian warplanes that carried out a purported chemical attack against civilians earlier this month.

American officials have insisted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ordered an attack on civilians using sarin gas, a deadly chemical weapon that is banned by the UN. When announcing his decision to launch the airstrike, which consisted of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles being fired at Al Shayrat Airfield where the alleged chemical weapons attack originated, President Trump declared that the strike was in the “vital national security of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

“There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council,” President Trump went on to insist. “Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Syrian President Assad has denied he ordered the attack, and has insisted that his regime gave up all of its chemical weapons in 2013. In a controversial interview shortly after the alleged attack with Agence France-Presse (AFP), which has since been deleted from the world renowned news outlet’s website, Assad vehemently denied responsibility for the attack that purportedly took place in the Syrian town of Khan Shaykhun, describing the event as a “100% fabrication.”

“Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists,” he told AFP in the interview. “They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack.”

Assad went on to question the validity of the dramatic videos depicting the alleged attack, which were shown on major media outlets across the globe and used to justify an American military response to the purported attack. Assad stated it was “not clear” to him and his government whether an attack took place at all, but if an attack did take place, his government was not responsible.

“You have a lot of fake videos now,” Assad stated. “We don’t know whether those dead children were killed in Khan Shaykhun. Were they dead at all?”

NWO in action cover

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been equally skeptical of the alleged attack and America’s response. During a press conference shortly after the alleged chemical attack, Putin suggested that the situation reminded him of the lead-up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was based on entirely fabricated intelligence and outright lies.

“The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat, and the appearance of Islamic State on the world stage,” Putin noted.

Putin also suggested the alleged attack may have been a Western-created provocation or false-flag attack designed to justify a military strike against Syria. “We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one—and I cannot call it otherwise—are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus,” RT quoted Putin as stating at the press conference. “They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack.”

The Russian government has urged the UN to launch an objective investigation into the alleged attack, and bring their results and conclusions to the international community.

“We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe,” Putin stated.

Liberty Stickers

American Rhetoric Against Russia and Syria Increasingly Hostile

American officials, including President Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have used increasingly bellicose and hostile rhetoric towards Russia and Syria, even going so far as to accuse Russia of knowing in advance the Syrians were planning a chemical weapons attack. A declassified U.S. intelligence report published last week not only concludes Syria’s government ordered the sarin gas attack, but also argues Russia is helping Syria cover up its alleged crimes.

“The United States is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack, using the nerve agent sarin, against its own people in the town of Khan Shaykhun in southern Idlib Province on April 4, 2017,” the document states. “The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier attacks.”

The report goes on to argue that Russia “spins out multiple, conflicting accounts in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the international community.”

Interestingly, immediately following reports of the purported chemical weapons attack, Israeli defense and intelligence officials pinned the blame on Syrian President Assad, insisting he personally ordered the attacks. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, a far-right Zionist, declared that Israel was “100% certain” the attacks were “directly ordered and planned by Syrian President Bashar Assad,” according to Ha’aretz, an Israeli news outlet.

Putin, for his part, told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that it was “unacceptable” to make “groundless accusations” of such a magnitude before an impartial investigation was conducted. Israel and Jewish neoconservatives with close ties to the Zionist state have played a leading role in promoting an aggressive American foreign and military policy in the Middle East, and were largely responsible for the disastrous wars in Iraq, Libya, and other Muslim-majority nations in the region.

Fake News Media and Political Establishment Support War

Virtually the entire American political and media establishment has supported President Trump’s strike against Syria, and have actively participated in the hysterical demonization of both Assad and Putin. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) are two notable exceptions, as both congressional leaders have criticized President Trump’s moves in Syria. Gabbard has even expressed skepticism and doubt about whether Assad was truly behind the alleged chemical weapons attack, drawing the ire of more establishment Democrats. Her justifiable skepticism has led liberal leaders to demand Hawaiians vote her out of office in the next election.

“Why should we just blindly follow this escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war?” Gabbard asked, while defending her skepticism during a recent interview with CNN.

As is generally the case, those criticizing America’s warmongering are attacked and slandered as “unpatriotic” and “un-American,” while leading cheerleaders for more war and mayhem receive praise and adoration.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.


Can We Get the Truth About a Possible North Korea Showdown?

There is so much fake news circulating about North Korea, it’s hard to know what’s really the truth. Is North Korea’s Kim Jung-Un really interested in nuking the U.S.? Will China and Russia rally behind the U.S. military if the U.S. attacks? You may be surprised when you read Dr. Johnson’s commentary below.

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

The U.S. Navy is making its way to Korean waters. Stealth bombers are now on alert in South Korea and Japan. If you believe the mainstream media, this is all because North Korea is threatening the world with nuclear annihilation. But what is the truth, and who is really to blame for ratcheting up tensions in Asia?

Regardless of one’s views on Pyongyang, the North Koreans have not sought to conquer anyone and seek nothing but to be left alone. The North Korean military has been dug in and waiting for a Southern or American attack for decades. Its population is used to drills and civil defense procedures to fight such an attack.

North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. However, it seeks to be a nuclear power to deter attacks from the much larger American, Japanese, and Southern forces.

In October 2016, North Korea made this principle clear. To speak of Kim Jong-Un’s “threats” against the U.S. while the U.S. engages in almost monthly military exercises against North Korea is absurd and masks a larger agenda.

Contrary to media myths, North Korea has never stated it would use nuclear weapons first. They have said they would use nuclear weapons only in the case of foreign attack. The only chance of a nuclear war in Korea is because of American provocations. The Chinese have echoed this as well.

The U.S. has said it will attack the North if a weapons test were carried out, but many such tests have taken place in the North in the past. Regardless, this is not legal grounds for a preemptive military strike, let alone a nuclear one.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The incessant American press mantra that China and North Korea are on the verge of becoming enemies is also false. The opposite—as usual—is the case.

Decades of nuclear tests have not harmed Pyongyang-Peking relations. China has never, in any form, said it will bomb Korea’s nuclear facilities. In fact, China’s ambassador to the UN, Liu Jieyi, blamed the U.S. for the escalation in the region.

Importantly, China has no incentive to see an American victory in Asia against a friendly power. It was only a few months ago that Washington was trying to start another war, this time against China, in the South China Sea. To suggest that China will break with a long-time ally in favor of U.S. imperialism is not just arrogant; it is grossly naive.

So what is the truth about North Korea?

There is no doubt the West is peddling fabrications about North Korea. That is because much of the information reaching the public comes from defectors, who have every reason to exaggerate. In 2014, The Guardian in the UK exposed many defector stories as false.

For example, Shin Dong-hyuk travels around the world, lecturing about the “death camps” in North Korea, yet he speaks with a pronounced Southern accent. His book and various videos have been exposed as frauds. Others, who supposedly were experimented on in North Korea before fleeing for their lives, have also been revealed to be telling tall tales.

It is this false information that is used to justify keeping American troops in South Korea as well as running exercises meant to train assassins to murder the North Korean head of state.

It is worth noting that Russian reports do not show North Korea as a starving, totalitarian country. According to Russian news outlets, the poverty that does exist there is largely due to North Korea’s need to divert over 50% of its budget to the military. Long-time sanctions on the country also depress its economy.

A revitalized Russia under Vladimir Putin has modernized portions of the North, while China supplies much of its energy needs. In 2014, Russia announced $25 billion in investment projects in the North.

There is now even a burgeoning middle class, and the automotive market has taken off.

North Korea is not to be underestimated. Russian and NATO analysis reported as late as December of last year that Pyongyang’s military technology is better than previously thought.

The South far exceeds the North in military technology, but South Korea remains a deeply divided society. In the event of war, South Korean forces would come under American, not Korean, command. South Koreans, as their history of anti-American rioting have shown, might not be willing to kill fellow Koreans for American interests.

The very large North Korean forces have a great superiority in tanks, artillery pieces, and infantry. The North has almost 100 submarines, while the South has just over 20.

As for aircraft, the North and South are equal in terms of numbers, but the quality certainly favors the South.

Outside of nuclear weapons, the North has pioneered the development of “midget submarines,” very hard to detect, that can be produced in large numbers and can swarm enemy ships. Further, two very dangerous artillery pieces in the North Korean arsenal are the 170mm Koksan howitzers and MRL-240 rocket launchers. The KN-2 Toksa is a fairly advanced ballistic missile system taken from the Russian SS-21 class.

Compare that to the U.S. military, which is overstretched and involved in several continents. The U.S. has been building up forces in the Baltics and Romania, and now is seeking to move into Syria.

In 2008, North Korea sought to end provocative military drills. Despite this, in March 2017, the U.S. and South Korea performed military exercises using simulated nuclear weapons against the North. The U.S. and South Korea also engaged in their largest military exercise yet, and the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier team has now been diverted to the Sea of Japan.

In March, China offered a deal by which the North would end all nuclear tests in exchange for the complete cessation of drills by the Americans and the South. It was angrily rejected by Washington.

President Donald Trump’s secretary of defense, Gen. James Mattis, a fervent neocon, stated, “We are working diplomatically, including with those that we might be able to enlist in this effort to get North Korea under control.”

Immediately after this statement, he attacked Russia, saying, “[Russia’s] violations of international law are now a matter of record.” This was in reference to Crimea. He then trailed off, saying they shouldn’t be “mucking around inside other people’s elections and that sort of thing.”

North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Han Song Ryol said the Trump administration has been the most provocative of any in recent memory.

Han calls the nuclear weapons program a “self defense” system against a militarily superior West and South.  He reiterated that there is no desire for a preemptive strike against the U.S., but the American media is saying otherwise.

Matthew Raphael Johnson is an author and historian whose area of special expertise is Slavic studies. He is also an acknowledged authority on the history of nationalism and nationalist movements. He is the author of Russian Populist, a book detailing the political thought of Vladimir Putin.

Will Christianity Perish in Its Birthplace?

“Liberated for democracy” by the U.S., Afghanistan is now among the world’s most deadly when it comes to persecution of Christians. In Iraq and Syria, which once tolerated and even embraced Christians, hundreds of thousands are now fleeing for their lives. The 44 Coptic Christians killed in Egypt on Palm Sunday are only a few of the estimated 90,000 Christians around the world killed for their faith in 2016. Is the ultimate goal to drive all Christians from the Holy Lands?

By Pat Buchanan

“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)” Those are among Jesus’s last words on the cross that first Good Friday. It was a cry of agony, but not despair. The dying Christ, to rise again in three days, was repeating the first words of the 22nd Psalm.

And today, in lands where Christ lived and taught and beyond where the Christian faith was born and nourished, the words echo. For it is in the birthplace of Christianity that Christians face the greatest of persecutions and martyrdoms since the time of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin.

President Donald Trump, outraged by pictures of infants and children who had perished in the nerve gas attack in Syria, ordered missile strikes on the air base from which the war crime came.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Two days later, Palm Sunday, 44 Coptic Christians celebrating Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem were martyred in terrorist attacks in Egypt. The first bombing was at St. George’s Church in Tanta, the second at St. Mark’s in Alexandria, where the Coptic Pope Tawadros II was at Mass.

The pope was unhurt, but 100 Christians were injured in the attacks. At St. George’s, one witness described the scene after the bomb exploded near the altar: “I saw pieces of body parts. . . . There was so much blood everywhere. Some people had half of their bodies missing.”

The Islamic State group claims credit for the murders, and the pictures of dead children from those churches were surely as horrific as the pictures the president saw after the gas attack.

Gideon Elite book cover

Copts are among the earliest Christians, dating to the first century A.D., when St. Mark, one of the Twelve Apostles, established the first church outside the Holy Land and became bishop of Alexandria.

The Copts make up 10% of Egypt’s population. They have been especially targeted for terrorist attacks since the 2013 overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, who had been elected president after the ouster of longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak.

In the subsequent struggle between Egypt’s Islamists, whose base is in Sinai, and the Cairo regime of Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who was welcomed to the White House in March, the Copts are seen as soft-target allies of el-Sissi’s and hated for their faith.

Whatever they did for democracy, the U.S. interventions in the Middle East and the vaunted Arab Spring have proved to be pure hell for Arab Christians.

In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Christians were left alone if they did not interfere in politics. Indeed, they prospered as doctors, lawyers, journalists, academics, engineers, businessmen. A Christian, Tariq Aziz, was Saddam’s foreign minister, who negotiated with Secretary of State James Baker to try to prevent what became the Gulf War.

Before 2003, there were still 800,000 Christians in Iraq. But after a decade of church bombings and murders of priests, their numbers have plummeted. When the Islamic State seized a third of Iraq, Christians under the group’s rule had to convert to Islam and pay a tax or face beheading.

On Dec. 26, St. Stephen’s Day, which honors the first martyr, Pope Francis hailed the Iraqi Christians lately liberated from Islamic State rule, noting, “They are our martyrs of today, and there are so many we can say that they are more numerous than in the first centuries.”

In 2016, an estimated 90,000 more Christians worldwide died for their faith.

Under Syria’s dictator Hafez al-Assad and son Bashar, Christians have been 10% of the population and protected by the regime. They thus have sided with Assad against the terrorists of the Islamic State and al Qaeda, whose victory would mean their expulsion or death.

Of the 10 nations deemed by Christianity Today to be the most hateful and hostile toward Christianity, eight are majority-Muslim nations, with the Middle East being the site of the worst of today’s persecutions.

Afghanistan, which we “liberated” in 2001, is listed as the third-most hostile nation toward Christians. The punishment for baptism there is death. A decade ago, a Christian convert had to flee his country to avoid beheading.

ISIS Is Us Book cover

Consider. Christianity, whose greatest feast day we celebrated on Sunday, April 16, is the cradle faith of the culture and the civilization of the West. And in our secularized world, Christianity remains the predominant faith.

A millennium ago, Christendom mounted crusades to ensure that its pilgrims would not lose the right to visit the Holy Land in peace.

Now, a decade and a half after we launched invasions and occupations of the Muslim world in Afghanistan and then Iraq to bring the blessings of democracy, the people there who profess that Christian faith are being persecuted as horribly as they were under the Romans in Nero’s time.

Where are the gains for religious freedom and human rights to justify all the bombings, invasions, and wars we have conducted in the lands from Libya to Pakistan—to justify the losses we have endured and the death and suffering we have inflicted?

Truth be told, it is in part because of us that Christianity is on its way to being exterminated in its cradle.

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?


Washington’s Deception Is Aimed at Russia, Vladimir Putin

Sane Americans are wondering what’s going on in Washington. Did President Donald Trump really cave to pressure from the deep state? Why would he order missile strikes against the Syrian military when he promised on the campaign trail that he would not get the U.S. involved in the civil war in Syria? Above, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson walks with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov ahead of their bilateral meeting at the Osobnyak Guest House in Moscow, Russia on April 12, 2017.

By Paul Craig Roberts

According to a report on RT, Secretary of State Tillerson has on CBS backed away from his previously reported aggressive rhetoric reported by the presstitutes against Russia and Syria.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to the RT report, Tillerson said that Washington’s plan is to defeat ISIS, not to bring regime change to Syria. It is up to the Syrian people, Tillerson reportedly said, to choose their own president. “We’ve seen what violent regime change looks like in Libya and the kind of chaos that can be unleashed and indeed the kind of misery that it enacts on its own people,” he said on CBS. “I think we have to learn the lessons of the past,” he emphasized on ABC, adding, “Any time you go on and have a violent change at the top, it is very difficult to create the conditions for stability longer term.”

If the report is correct, it could either be good news or another Washington deception in advance of Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, the purpose of which will be to bring the Russian government into Washington’s orbit and an agreement to replace Assad with an American vassal.

Gideon Elite book cover

Perhaps the Russian government will keep in mind Tillerson’s revealing statement that the message the US sent with its illegal, war crime, unprovoked attack on Syria “is that the violation of international norms . . . will no longer be tolerated.”

Of course, who is the violator of “international norms”? No one but Washington (and Israel). Washington is the greatest violator of “international norms” in modern history. Washington has invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, organized the destruction of Libya and Somalia, conducted attacks on Pakistan and Yemen, and organized a coup against the democratically elected government in Ukraine.

Only Washington has a list of crimes this long. And we can add to it Honduras, Brazil, Argentina, and in the works, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

If Russia falls into Washington’s trap of deception, Russia will be destroyed.

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of The Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for BusinessWeek, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has held many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’s latest books are How AMERICA Was LOST: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State and The NEOCONSERVATIVE THREAT to WORLD ORDER: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony.

Is Trump Enlisting in the War Party?

President Donald Trump, supported in large part because of his campaign promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign wars, seems to be marching to the beat of the warmongers rather than his electorate. Has he been fooled by what Patrick Buchanan writes “has the marks of a false-flag operation”? 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

By firing off five-dozen Tomahawk missiles at a military airfield, our “America-first” president may have plunged us into another Middle East war that his countrymen do not want to fight.

Thus far Bashar Assad seems unintimidated. Brushing off the strikes, he has defiantly gone back to bombing the rebels from the same Shayrat air base that the U.S. missiles hit.

Trump “will not stop here,” warned UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Sunday. “If he needs to do more, he will.”

If Trump fails to back up Haley’s threat, the hawks now cheering him on will begin deriding him as “Donald Obama.”

But if he throbs to the war drums of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio and orders Syria’s air force destroyed, we could be at war not only with ISIS and al Qaeda, but with Syria, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

A Syrian war would consume Trump’s presidency.

Are we ready for that? How would we win such a war without raising a large army and sending it back into the Middle East?

Another problem: Trump’s missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.

Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.

Gideon Elite book cover

What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational:

“When you kill innocent children, innocent babies—babies, little babies—with a chemical gas . . . that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. . . . And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me . . . my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”

Two days later, Trump was still emoting: “Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”

Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria’s civil war, among them thousands of children and infants.

Have they been killed by Assad’s forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian, Israeli, and Turkish planes and drones—and by Kurds, Iranians, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, ISIS, U.S.-backed rebels, and Shiite militia.

Assad is battling insurgents and jihadists who would slaughter his Alawite brethren and the Christians in Syria just as those Copts were massacred in Egypt on Palm Sunday. Why is Assad more responsible for all the deaths in Syria than those fighting to overthrow and kill him?

Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?

For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve-gas attack on children, certain to ignite America’s rage, for no military gain?

ISIS Is Us Book cover

Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false-flag operation to stampede America into Syria’s civil war.

And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him—to keep us out of unnecessary wars—may not be standing by him.

We have no vital national interest in Syria’s civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for.

For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al Qaeda, it is about driving the Crusaders out of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds.

For Assad, this war is about his survival and that of his regime. For Putin, it is about Russia remaining a great power and not losing its last naval base in the Med. For Iran, this is about preserving a land bridge to its Shiite ally, Hezbollah. For Hezbollah, it is about not being cut off from the Shiite world and isolated in Lebanon.

Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans without a fight.

And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?

A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim heretics? LGBT rights?

In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria.

We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue: Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?

If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war, the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.

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?


Donald Trump’s Tomahawk Attack on Syria Is An Absurdity

Launching 60 cruise missiles against the Syrian government before an independent investigation can prove who exactly was behind the gas attack in Syria was foolish and played into the hands of the global warmongers.

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

President Donald Trump threw away a great deal of support by ordering a cruise missile attack on Syria April 7. Obviously, Assad would have had no interest in using internationally banned chemical weapons in a war that he has already won, well aware of the inevitable American response.

The attack on Sharat air base in Homs province was launched from U.S. ships in the Mediterranean. Three Syrian soldiers were killed, and the base was destroyed.

Worst of all, ISIS and other radical groups now have a new lease on life thanks to Trump buying into the international warmongers’ desire to topple the stable government in Syria.

ISIS Is Us Book cover

One need not be a military strategist to realize that either the Syrian government is unhinged or the original chemical attack story was a lie.

The U.S. government warned the Russian military personnel at the air base prior to launching cruise missiles, in order to avoid a more serious incident, but Russia has still taken this as an act of war. Russian leader Vladimir Putin made the obvious statement that the attack was a form of unwarranted aggression.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that no evidence was ever offered that the Syrians would have made such an impulsive move in a war they had already won. The Foreign Ministry in Moscow stated:

The very presence of U.S. troops and other countries in Syria without the consent of the government or the UN Security Council is a blatant, explicit, and unwarranted violation of international law. If before it was due to the task of combating terrorism, now it is an attack on Syria proper. U.S. actions taken today will further destroy the Russian-American relationship.

In 2013, both Russia and the U.S. came to the conclusion, after substantial inspections were conducted, that Syria did not possess chemical weapons. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, attached to the UN, was in charge of the inspections.

The pro-U.S. Iraqi puppet government has confirmed that the terrorists alone possessed these weapons.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

To the extent any gas was released, it was because the Syrian Air Force bombed a weapons depot that contained chemical weapons. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated:

In recent years, the organization [for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] has inspected almost all the objects that were or could be related to the military-chemical program in Syria. As for Idlib, terrorists were engaged in the production of toxic substances that they stuffed into roadside bombs for use in Syria and Iraq. . . They turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons by terrorists in Iraq, as officially reported by [the pro-American government in] Baghdad. They dismiss the application documents of logged chemical weapons by terrorists in Aleppo. . . . There is no doubt that the U.S. military action is an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul, where as a result of actions, including the U.S.-led coalition, killing hundreds of civilians and the growing humanitarian catastrophe (April 7, translation mine).

Questions about the alleged attacks abound. Feras Karam, an anti-Assad journalist, wrote on April 3 of his upcoming campaign to cover Syrian airstrikes on rebel-held villages and the use of chemical weapons, and said chlorine gas would be used. Further, Dr. Shajul Islam, a physician working in Khan Sheikhoun where the alleged gas attacks occurred, reportedly received shipments of gas masks several days earlier. Pictures have emerged showing volunteer rescue workers, the Syrian “White Helmets,” handling corpses allegedly from the attack without the protective gear required by normal protocol, because sarin easily penetrates the skin. It kills by breaking the contact between the brain and the lungs, rendering the victim unable to breathe.

This author claims no expertise in military aviation, but the consensus seems to be that Russian SU-22 jets’ custom bombs cannot be filled with any chemical weapons, as they are fully stuffed with their own explosives. The mechanism required to make the dormant gas functional is large and can only fit into a few types of warheads. However, the jets that allegedly gassed this area were SU-22s, flown by Syrian pilots.

ISIS is known to have used gas in the past, though far from the only ones to do so. The Daily Mail has obtained video showing experiments with gas being conducted on rebel bases throughout Syria. Even worse for the Americans, the CIA-controlled “Voice of America” has admitted that Jaysh al-Islam, the coalition of Islamist and Salafist units involved in the Syrian civil war, previously used chemical agents against Kurds in Aleppo. Therefore, as the Syrians handed over any old stores of chemical weapons to the UN in 2013, the rebels increased their stockpiles.

The most damning piece of evidence against the System’s view is that, just a week ago, the American government officially stated that “regime change” was no longer an option. Then, the gas attack occurs on a town that could have been cleared out easily by ground forces.

Assad has won this war, and is now focused on rebuilding internally and externally. To use gas at this juncture goes against all logic.

Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is a writer and lives in Pennsylvania.

McCain, Graham ‘Furious’ as White House Changes Course on Syria, Assad

According to reports, two warmongering U.S. senators are “furious” that the White House has changed policy in Syria and wants the Syrians themselves to decide their own future rather than have it imposed upon them by the West.

By Roland Smith

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the legislators from Arizona and South Carolina, are reportedly fuming mad that the U.S. is no longer seeking to overthrow Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Instead, the White House’s official policy is to let the Syrian people decide their own fate.

On April 30, U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the White House’s “priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out.”

The next day, White House press spokesman Sean Spicer told the press corps: “We believe that there’s a need to de-escalate violence and to have a political process through which Syrians will decide their own political future . . . .”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Incredibly, despite this good news, McCain and Graham were reportedly “furious” that the U.S. is changing course.

For a number of years now, the U.S. has been funding and arming radical terrorists in Syria and Iraq in an insane attempt to overthrow the stable government of Syria.

Apparently, McCain and Graham have wanted to do to Syria what was done to Libya in 2011. That year, Western powers bombed Libya and funded and armed radical groups. Ultimately, this  led to the the brutal, bloody assassination of former Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi on Oct. 20, 2011. Graphic video of the assassination can be seen online by clicking here.

The two warmongering senators have never met a war they didn’t like—even when it is not in the interests of the U.S. While McCain was in Vietnam as a pilot, Graham, who was in the military, never saw any combat. As a pencil pusher, Graham did paperwork in the U.S. for soldiers who were being shipped off to wars in the Middle East.

Roland Smith is a writer and lives in Washington, D.C.

Is Putin the ‘Preeminent Statesman’ of Our Times?

While the U.S. is on the decline, mired in endless, costly wars around the world, Russia under Vladimir Putin is on the rise. U.S. career politicians assail the Russian leader as the U.S. military taunts him with maneuvers on his borders. Still Putin remains steadfast in his singular effort to make Russia great again.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time. . . . On the world stage, who could vie with him?”

So asks Chris Caldwell of The Weekly Standard in a remarkable essay in Hillsdale College’s March issue of its magazine, Imprimis.

What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?

“When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.

“In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.”

Putin’s approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Donald Trump’s?

Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists, and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.

And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.

The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” He invaded and occupies Ukraine. His old KGB comrades assassinate journalists, defectors, and dissidents.

Yet while politics under both czars and commissars has often been a blood sport in Russia, what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt?

What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July’s coup—or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers?

Does anyone think President Xi Jinping would have handled mass demonstrations against his regime in Tiananmen Square more gingerly than did Putin this last week in Moscow?

Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.

He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him.

In December, one poll found 37% of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17% were positive on President Barack Obama.

There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance.

Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st.

The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order.

On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle’s Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally.

So the old question arises: Who owns the future?

In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia—as was America in the Cold War—may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic.

“Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism,” writes Caldwell. “That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that’s true even here.”

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?.


Beginning of the End as Brexit Takes Shape

Today marks the beginning of the end of UK’s membership in the EU, a solid victory after a long, well-fought battle by populist-minded citizens desiring to restore self-rule to their nation. Divorces can be messy, and time will tell who wins custody of the UK “children”—including the nation’s agricultural programs and national immigration policy—and how the separation will impact the UK’s involvement in the European army.

By Mark Anderson

The inspiring populist surge that’s tugging at the seams of the New World Order has reached an historic turning point. On March 29—nine months after the June 23 “Brexit” referendum vote by a respectable majority of Brits to exit the European Union—the British government stated it would honor the will of the voters and is starting the formal process of filing for divorce from the EU.

It’s been nearly 45 years since British Prime Minister Edward Heath took the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community (EEC)—a Bilderberg-blessed trade and economic bloc that gradually sapped British sovereignty and foreshadowed the larger, more consolidated, deeply dictatorial European Union. This paradigm-shifting move in January 1973 brought EEC membership to nine. Then, a 1975 referendum saw the UK electorate vote to stay in the EEC under renegotiated terms of entry.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Over time, Britain, while it clung to its pound sterling and never became part of the eurozone, nevertheless sank into the morass of the bureaucratic, increasingly dictatorial European Union. The 28-member EU’s immigration policies became especially egregious, in the eyes of UK voters.

The practical outcome of those policies: a heavy flow into Britain of often unassimilable foreigners who have drastically changed the island nation’s unique character. And British military involvement in the “war on terror” has helped destroy the home countries of Middle Eastern and North African peoples who have migrated into Europe and the UK, in ever-larger numbers.

Kicking off Brexit’s expected two-year process of pulling out of the EU, UK Prime Minister Theresa May confidently told members of Parliament in the House of Commons: “This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back.” Accordingly, the UK’s Article 50 six-page notification letter was delivered by Sir Tim Barrow to European Council President Donald Tusk in Brussels.
Liberty Stickers

But the EU super-state and its managers aren’t big on national sovereignty. Sky News quoted Tusk as saying: “There is no reason to pretend that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels, nor in London. After all, most Europeans, including almost half the British voters wish that we would stay together, not drift apart . . .

“But paradoxically there is also something positive in Brexit. Brexit has made us, the community of 27, more determined and more united than before,” Tusk added, “In essence, this is about damage control. Our goal is clear: to [minimize] the costs for the EU citizens, businesses and Member States. We will do everything in our power . . .  to achieve this goal. And what we should stress today is that, as for now, nothing has changed: until the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, EU law will continue to apply to—and within—the UK.

“Finally, I would like to say that we have just released an official statement by the European Council, in which leaders stress that we will act as one and start negotiations by focusing on all key arrangements for an orderly withdrawal. On Friday [March 31] I will share a proposal of the negotiating guidelines with the Member States, to be adopted by the European Council on 29 April.”

Divorces, even when necessary and ultimately beneficial, can be a messy affair. Of course, the establishment press is largely beside itself, casting doubt on the wisdom of Brexit while trying to read the tea leaves on why mostly rural British voters decided they’d had enough of the EU. One BBC article called Brexit “suicidal self-harm” that will deny British finances and manpower to the greater EU.

Thought Police Censorship AFP

Significant challenges do lie ahead. Will the UK’s entanglement in the budding European army prove to be a barrier or have a slowing effect on executing Brexit? Will Brexit allow the UK to regain control of its fisheries and other agricultural systems? Will the UK government maintain open-borders immigration policies even as a non-EU member?

And as former UK intelligence analyst Alex Thomson of Eastern Approaches told the “UK Column News”  for its March 29 broadcast, the EU is a “supra-national body” from which departure is no cakewalk, because it’s not as if the UK is departing just another international organization.

As he stated, “The EU is unique in global and diplomatic institutions, in that it is not just an international organization by treaty, but it is also a supra-national body. It sits above and replaces parts of your government, by the connivance of your government, over the heads of the people. The continentals [those in the EU mainland] are starting to realize this as well.”

He added that the EU’s supra-national doctrine regarding sovereignty, “once acquired, always acquired” makes departing the EU particular difficult, as necessary and desirable as it is.  “It’s something that’s never been done before in world history,” he concluded.

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

After Jailing Crooked Bankers, Iceland’s Economy Is Roaring

With a remarkable turnaround from economic collapse to financial stability in less than a decade, the “miracle of Iceland” came about after fierce prosecution of banksters and corrupt politicians. Is the “common man” elsewhere around the world viewing this stunning reversal with growing interest, perhaps even strategizing how to likewise overcome the robber barons and save other nations? 

By Dave Gahary

After prosecuting banksters and corrupt politicians in the fallout of widespread protests of the Nordic country’s October 2008 economic collapse, Iceland has regained its financial footing.

The government declared on March 14 that financial stability had been restored and it was ending its “longstanding restrictions on the flow of money into and out of the country,” signifying its “return to international financial markets.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The miracle of Iceland—population 332,529—reported regularly in the pages of this newspaper, is a story of the common man taking on the robber barons and winning. The backlash against the financial machinations almost a decade ago was so fierce that not only were nearly 100 bankers and politicians targeted for prosecution, but Iceland’s prime minister, Geir Hilmar Haarde, was forced out of office, becoming the first sitting minister of that country indicted for misconduct.

Haarde was found guilty of “failing to adequately inform other Icelandic officials of events that led up to the 2008 financial crisis,” reported this newspaper in 2012.

Although Haarde spent no time behind bars, the backlash against the plutocrats “was indicative of Iceland’s re-establishment of its sovereignty after defaulting on the bankers,” wrote American Free Press.

Iceland’s economy expanded over 7% in 2016, all the more remarkable considering its “three main banks failed and its currency and economy fell into a tailspin,” as reported in The New York Times on March 14. After imposing financial controls—which stopped foreign investors from yanking their money out and destroying the economy—Iceland is now worried about the “risks of overheating and inflation.”

While the unemployment rate has plummeted to 2.6%, a near record low, rampant “wage increases are crimping productivity and may encourage inflation,” states the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 35-member intergovernmental economic organization whose goal is to stimulate economic progress and world trade.

At the time of the 2008 collapse, Iceland’s three biggest banks’ combined assets were an astonishing 14 times larger than the country’s economic output. Chafing under a withering $85 billion of debt, “foreigners owned such a huge chunk of that figure that allowing them to take assets out would risk severely devaluing Iceland’s currency, the krona,” reported the Times.

With the krona devalued, reported the Times, “tourism took off much faster than other new ventures because visitors could see the northern lights and the rugged Icelandic landscape at a steep discount.”

Bohemian Grove book cover

Tourism is now Iceland’s biggest industry, recently overtaking fishing and, perhaps not surprisingly, banking, with nearly two million visitors a year pumping over $3 billion into the economy in 2015, a remarkable third of the country’s export earnings. In fact, 10% of Icelanders work in the tourism industry, the country’s single largest employer.

Iceland’s stunning comeback stands in stark contrast to that of Greece, which has been foundering since Athens imposed controls on capital in 2015 as the country seemed to be veering toward dumping the euro.

Although some restrictions were eased, they are mostly expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future.

Sadly, for the Hellenic Republic, economists have little hope that the birthplace of democracy will recover, as it continues to labor under huge debt in its third international financial rescue program in seven years.

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.

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—Amazon.com, owned and run by Jeff Bezos (currently worth at least $73.4 billion, according to Forbes Magazine). Note that Amazon by itself accounted for 31% of all online sales on Cyber Weekend 2016 and 61% of all online sales growth in 2015, far surpassing all others.

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

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

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 FreePress.net. The issue of Internet censorship is evolving so rapidly, it’s the only way you’ll be able to keep up with the coming reportage we’ll be bringing you on this important story.

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