Attacked for Criticizing Illegal Immigration

“Never Trump” columnist called a “racist” for reciting facts about foreign invasion

By S.T. Patrick

Bret Stephens is now a “white nationalist,” at least in the eyes of former CNN host and current UC-Riverside creative writing professor Reza Aslan. If that wasn’t castigating enough, failed CNN host Soledad O’Brien called him a “full-on bigot.” Stephens is a conservative columnist for The New York Times who wrote an op-ed criticizing 2020 Democratic candidates for their blanket advocacy of illegal immigration. For warning Democratic candidates against supporting illegal acts, Stephens got branded with the scarlet letter of the new millennium: a label marking the target as racially insensitive, fascist, bigoted or any combination of the three.

After watching the first two Democratic debates, Stephens wrote that the Democratic Party is a “party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country” and that “puts more of its faith and invests most of its efforts” in illegal immigrants rather than American citizens. What hit the intricately sensitive nerves of a wave of Democratic commentators was Stephens’s use of two words: “them,” describing illegal immigrants, and “us,” describing American citizens.

Faraday Twins ad

“They speak Spanish. We don’t. They are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. We are. They broke the rules to get into this country. We didn’t. They pay few or no taxes. We already pay most of those taxes. They willingly got themselves into debt. We’re asked to write it off,” Stephens wrote in his controversial op-ed. “They don’t pay the premiums for private health insurance. We’re supposed to give up ours in exchange for some VA-type nightmare. They didn’t start enterprises that create employment and drive innovation. We’re expected to join the candidates in demonizing the job-creators, breaking up their businesses, and taxing them to the hilt.”

In particular, Stephens was flummoxed that 10 Democratic candidates raised their hands at the debate, all assuring Americans that yes, their individual healthcare plans would, indeed, cover illegal immigrants within American borders. There is a complete disconnect between some candidates and average Americans if they believe that American taxes paying for illegal immigrant healthcare would elicit a sigh of relief from working Americans. Do they believe steel mill workers in Pennsylvania were on the edge of their seats, hoping someone, anyone, would make sure an illegal immigrant from Honduras or Mexico or Somalia would get free healthcare and a free college education? Yet, the candidates’ hands flew up like a teacher asking her class, “Who wants to go outside first at recess?” This is what baffled Stephens as he viewed the debates.

Stephens doubled down at the end of his article, writing, “The Democratic Party we saw this week did even less to appeal beyond its base than the president. And at least his message is that he’s on their—make that our—side.”

Critics came from far and wide, and Stephens responded to them on Twitter, saying that Aslan and O’Brien “unwittingly demonstrate a style of moral bullying and progressive demagoguery that turns people off and plays into Trump’s hands.”

Crimes & Coverups, Jeffries
Jeffries, New at the AFP Online Store.

For those who believe Stephens is a Trump loyalist out to harass and harangue Democrats en route to a cozy 2020 re-election, he is not. “In case you missed my last 1,000 columns or so,” Stephens continued, “I want nothing more than for Trump to lose. But right now, I’d bet he’s going to win because the left is driving away the voters Democrats need to win.” Stephens is actually a “Never Trumper” who believes the Democratic candidates have gone off the rails on the issues of illegal immigration, free healthcare, and free college.

But those weren’t the only issues about which Stephens was concerned. He wrote, “Since Democrats are already committed to destroying the coal industry and seem inclined to turn Silicon Valley into a regulated utility, it’s worth asking: Just how much of the private economy are they even willing to keep?”

The plea to Stephens’s Democratic friends was overt. Nothing was hidden. He also wrote: “Democratic friends, if you go on like this, you’re going to lose the elections. And you’ll deserve it.” When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) screamed at law enforcement agents “in a threatening manner” during a recent visit to an El Paso, Texas Border Patrol facility, it also proved that the New Democrats have taken on a tone of irrationality. The agents do not make laws; she does. Maturity is on the last train out of D.C., and Ocasio-Cortez made herself the chief conductor. Is this a party that is trying to attract donors and voters?

Stephens was actually arguing not from a conservative pedestal, but from an American one. As the parties continue to choose candidates who seem hell-bent on alienating average Americans (Trump on war, the fight against whistleblowers, and the continual appointment of neocons and the Democrats on the issues contained herein), then Americans will further distance themselves from any interest and financial support of the two majority parties.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected] He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication available from the AFP Online Store.

How Obama Colluded With Ukraine to Help Hillary Beat Donald Trump

Now that the Mueller investigation has finally ended, one would expect the mainstream media to be giving the same endless coverage to Obama’s apparent collusion with Ukraine to swing the presidential election in Hillary’s favor. Don’t hold your breath … . 

By Donald Jeffries

While a two-year investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russian officials has produced no evidence of any “collusion,” the mainstream media continues to ignore troubling connections between the Obama administration and foreign governments.

The most recent example involves former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig and how he allegedly misled the U.S. Justice Department about his law firm’s work in Ukraine. Craig is charged with providing false and misleading information to the Foreign Agent Registration Act office regarding the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko, a political rival of the country’s then-president, Viktor Yanukovych. Former Trump campaign head Paul Manafort was seemingly held to a different standard under the same act during Robert Mueller’s investigation.

A recent story in The Hill described how the Obama White House attempted to use Ukraine to give an early boost to the whole Russian “collusion” narrative. A January 2016 meeting in the Oval Office between some of the top Ukrainian prosecutors and investigators and representatives of the National Security Council, FBI, State Department, and Department of Justice has been documented by contemporary memos and testimony of multiple participants. Ukrainians who were at the meeting have stated that it quickly became apparent the meeting’s purported agenda of training and cooperation was a front. Instead, U.S. officials were clearly interested in two hot political controversies.

Subscribe to AFP

One of these involved Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s affiliation with Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. Bank records revealed that more than $3 million went from the Ukraine to an American firm tied to Hunter Biden during 2014-2015. U.S. officials asked the Ukrainians if they would drop the Burisma probe and turn it over to the FBI. The Ukrainians refused, but Biden went on to pressure Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire the country’s chief prosecutor in March 2016. This resulted in the Burisma case being transferred and eventually shut down.

According to Andrii Telizhenko, a political official in the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, who organized the meeting, U.S. officials “kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united.” The Americans stated that they had no interest in reviving a 2014 investigation into then-GOP lobbyist Manafort and others in the U.S. receiving payments from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions. At that time, the FBI had questioned Manafort about any improper foreign lobbying but stopped the investigation without charging him. Telizhenko was unable to recall if Manafort’s name was mentioned at the meeting, but other Ukrainian attendees remembered that Department of Justice representatives had asked investigators from Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau about finding new evidence regarding the Party of Regions’ payments and associations with Americans.

Deep State Target, Papadopoulos
Brand new at the AFP Online Story – the inside story from Papadopoulos!

“It was definitely the case that led to the charges against Manafort and the leak to U.S. media during the 2016 election,” Telizhenko declared. Spokespersons in the Department of Justice, National Security Council, and FBI declined to comment on The Hill’s article, and a representative for former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice did not return their emails.

Nazar Kholodnytsky, Ukraine’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told The Hill that he attended some of the January 2016 meetings in Washington. He described seeing a ledger showing payments from the Party of Regions to Manafort and said that Ukrainian authorities had known about it since 2014.

Commenting on the sudden release of this evidence by the U.S.-friendly National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) in May 2016, right after Manafort was named Trump’s campaign chairman, Kholodnytsky declared: “Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious. . . . I ordered the detectives to give nothing to the mass media considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published themselves these one or two pages of this black ledger regarding Paul Manafort. . . . For me it was the first call that something was going wrong and that there is some external influence in this case.”

Hidden History, Jeffries
Exposing modern crimes, conspiracies and political coverups at the AFP Online Store!

Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general’s international affairs office, corroborated this, noting, “Yes, there was a lot of talking about needing help and then the ledger just appeared in public.” Kulyk also said that Ukrainian authorities had evidence that others, like former Obama White House Counsel Gregory Craig, had also received money from Yanukovych’s party. But the Americans weren’t interested in any of that. “They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else,” Kulyk said.

A Ukrainian court concluded, in December 2018, that NABU’s release of the ledger was an illegal attempt to influence the U.S. election. A member of Ukraine’s parliament even released a recording of a NABU official commenting that the agency released the ledger to help Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

In an April 25 appearance on Fox News, President Donald Trump chimed in: “It sounds like big stuff. It sounds very interesting with Ukraine. . . . I’m not surprised.”

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.

Collusion Hoax Kills TV Ratings

Even left-leaning television viewers have realized the charges against Trump were fake news, and ratings have taken a hit as more and more Americans turn off the mainstream media.

By Donald Jeffries

While the establishment left desperately awaited the release of the full report issued by special counsel Robert Mueller, in the hopes of an imaginary smoking gun being discovered, an increasing number of Americans are turning off mainstream media. Both CNN and MSNBC, the television networks most vociferously pushing the absurd Russian “collusion” theory, experienced their second lowest ratings of the year in early April, according to Nielsen research. CNN has fallen behind the likes of Home and Garden TV and children’s network Nickelodeon in daytime ratings.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, perhaps the loudest voice in the state-run media howling about President Donald Trump conspiring with the Russians, lost half a million viewers just in the first week after the conclusions of the Mueller probe were reported. Her show has fallen an alarming 34% from the same point last year. Fox News, widely considered the television network fairest to Trump, has solidified its dominance in the ratings, and widened its lead on their more “liberal” counterparts throughout the Mueller investigation.

While mainstream television’s ratings are sinking rapidly, and establishment newspapers and magazines continue to go the way of the dinosaur, the public’s confidence in the press is dropping as well. A new poll by the Morning Consult revealed that, even among Democrats, faith in the biggest “liberal” media organs such The New York Times, NPR, CNN, NBC, and ABC dipped from July to December 2018, a time period when Russian “collusion” was front and center for all those outlets. The release of this poll came less than a month after Mueller’s probe concluded there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

National Coin Investments

In September 2018, a joint Knight Foundation and Gallup Poll found that public trust in the mainstream media had fallen to an all-time low. A majority of those surveyed said they had lost faith in the media in recent years, with 30% reporting that they expected this loss of faith to be permanent. The Trump effect was obvious; when people were asked why they didn’t trust the media, 45% cited inaccuracy, bias, and “fake news.” In an earlier 2018 poll, it was revealed that among high-profile institutions, public trust in newspapers and television news was lower than for any except Congress. The gap between liberals and conservatives is immense here; recent polls have shown that while 51% of Democrats trust mass media, only 14% of Republicans do.

The mainstream media has certainly done nothing over the years to earn the public trust. In 1990, CNN featured a seemingly terrified reporter Charles Jaco, covering a scud missile attack live from Iraq. What would subsequently be revealed, through video leaked by CNN staffers, was the fact Jaco was on a sound stage, complete with fake palm trees in the background. He could be seen clowning around with staff members before the “attack,” during which he dramatically donned a gas mask. Since CNN never publicly acknowledged or apologized for this serious breach of journalistic ethics, is it any wonder they cavalierly dismiss the potential lawsuit against them by the family of young Nicholas Sandmann?

In a more recent example, longtime smiling pixie “journalist” Katie Couric was caught with her pants down, as producers used extremely deceptive editing in a 2016 documentary she narrated on gun control. Under the Gun featured what appeared to be speechless members of a Virginia gun rights group, who couldn’t provide a coherent response to Couric’s grilling about background checks. In fact, audio was later released that demonstrated these same “speechless” pro-gun advocates had explained their position coherently and thoroughly, but their words had simply been edited out.

Survival of the Richest, Jeffries
“Corruption of the marketplace” at the AFP Online Store.

Documentary producer Stephanie Soechtig issued a familiar justification, stating, “My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.” The multi-millionaire talking head Couric backed her up, saying, “I support Stephanie’s statement and am very proud of this film.”

During the media-driven Trayvon Martin case a few years back, MSNBC was caught editing audio tape between George Zimmerman and a police dispatcher, in an overt effort to turn innocuous conversation into something “racist.”

In addition to this kind of outright deception, mainstream media outlets continue to push impossible official narratives to explain every significant event that happens around the world.

The fawning, pro-establishment tilt of our mainstream media became more apparent than ever during the Mueller probe, as “journalists” abandoned all pretenses towards objectivity and openly demanded that “something be done” about Trump. Their crusade to get the full Mueller report released represents a sole exception to their historical support for the suppression of government documents from the public.

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Two of his books are carried by the AFP Online Store.

Hate Crime Hoaxes on the Rise in America

Triggered liberals are fabricating violence to “prove” their claims about oppression, anti-Semitism and racism. The latest: Television actor Jussie Smollett has been charged with multiple felonies for fabricating a bizarre racially motivated attack on him, then sticking with his story even as it publicly unraveled around him.

By John Friend

In late January, news broke alleging that Jussie Smollett, a black, gay, and at least partially Jewish actor who starred in the popular television program “Empire” was violently assaulted on the streets of Chicago at 2 a.m. by two white men purportedly wearing ski masks.

Smollett alleged that his attackers, apparently motivated by racial hatred and instigated by President Donald Trump, yelled racial and homophobic slurs at the actor before shouting, “This is MAGA country,” referring to the president’s signature campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.” During the purported hate crime, the mysterious attackers also poured bleach on Smollett’s head and tied a rope around his neck in an attempt to lynch the actor, Smollett insisted in interviews with Chicago police and with the mass media.

The Diversity Delusion, MacDonald
“How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine our Culture,” Brand new at AFP!

Many questioned the dubious narrative put forth by Smollett, which was then blindly repeated and amplified by the mainstream mass media in the immediate aftermath. Smollett would later appear as a guest on the popular “Good Morning America” news program, where he was interviewed about the alleged attack. During the interview, Smollett expressed outrage at those questioning his narrative of the purported hate crime.

“It feels like if I had said it was a Muslim or a Mexican or someone black I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot more,” Smollett stated to host Robin Roberts during the interview. “And that says a lot about the place where we are as a country right now.”

Turns out, the doubters were right: Smollett faked the entire incident and was caught red-handed by Chicago police. Two Nigerian brothers were initially arrested as having been involved in the attack but were eventually released by police after an extensive interrogation during which they revealed Smollett had paid them to stage the attack. One of the brothers had a role in ”Empire,” and both knew Smollett personally.

According to CBS Chicago, the brothers told police that Smollett paid them $3,500 to participate in the entirely staged fake “hate crime,” and even directed them to purchase the rope used in the fake attack.

Despite Smollett’s narrative collapsing, the actor and his attorneys have doubled down and have expressed anger at the Chicago police’s findings that the alleged “hate crime” was in reality a staged, manufactured attack carried out at the behest of Smollett.

“As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with,” a statement released to CNN by Smollett’s lawyers recently declared. “He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.”

Although the case is still under investigation, it is becoming increasingly clear that Smollett was involved in yet another hate crime hoax, which have proliferated in recent years, particularly under President Donald Trump. While fake “hate crimes” have been popping up with the direct assistance of the mainstream mass media and various left leaning organizations who hype and amplify the alleged crimes, real crimes committed against Trump supporters and conservatives often go unreported and, even worse, unpunished.

Intimidation Game, Strassel
Political correspondent Kim Strassel on increasing intimidation by the Left to bully Americans out of free speech. On sale now.

Throughout the 2016 election season, Trump supporters were regularly violently and verbally assaulted at various rallies and events across the country. Left-wing terrorists, who are in many cases affiliated with radical-far-left antifa groups, have caused mayhem and chaos at a number of events, including Trump’s inauguration in the nation’s capital, where private property was vandalized and destroyed. Richard Spencer, the political commentator and figurehead of the alt-right movement, was sucker-punched on live television during the inauguration by a masked antifa supporter. Unsurprisingly, the attacker has yet to be brought to justice.

In a positive development, University of California, Berkeley police recently arrested a 28-year-old man suspected of violently assaulting a conservative activist involved with Turning Points USA, who had set up a table with promotional material for the group on the campus. Hayden Williams, the young activist who was on campus to reach out to other conservatives, was assaulted after being confronted by two men who did not approve of his signs and recruitment table. The two men knocked over Williams’s table and tore up his signs before one of the men punched Williams in the face. The incident was caught on film and has since gone viral on social media.

Conservatives praised the arrest of Williams’s suspected attacker.

“Hopefully, this dark chapter will act as a wake-up call to those concerned about actual politically motivated hate crimes in America,” Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of Turning Points USA, the conservative activist group that seeks to spread conservative ideals, stated following the arrest. “Berkeley and all college campuses across American should be safe havens for free thought and opinions—especially for a targeted conservative minority.”


In the wake of the “hate crime” hoax perpetrated by Smollett, it is important to recall other “hate crime” hoaxes that have been exposed since Trump assumed the office of the presidency.

“The Daily Caller,” a hard-hitting, politically incorrect conservative news outlet based in Washington, D.C. that was originally co-founded by Tucker Carlson, provided an excellent timeline of recent hate crime hoaxes, proving just how prevalent these manufactured outrages truly are.

The allegations and circumstances of alleged hate crimes are all too common: a minority verbally attacked by racist, insensitive, white Trump supporters, or racist and anti-Semitic graffiti sprayed on a minority’s home or on a synagogue. All too often, allegations of hate crimes are either exaggerated, committed by the individual making the allegations in the first place, or entirely manufactured.

What follows is a partial timeline of some of the more outlandish hate crime hoaxes we have witnessed over the course of the past three years:

  • In November 2016, shortly after Trump’s victory in the presidential election, churchgoers at St. David’s Episcopal Church in Bean Blossom, Ind. reported their place of worship had been vandalized with messages reading “fag church” and “heil Trump.” A swastika was also allegedly spray-painted on the building along with the other messages. It was later revealed that George Nathaniel Stang, 26, the organist at the church, had actually committed the acts of vandalism in an effort to “give local people a reason to fight for good,” according to a local NBC report.
  • A Muslim student at the University of Michigan made national headlines in the wake of Trump’s election victory by falsely claiming that an intoxicated young male student had threatened to light her on fire if she refused to remove her hijab. Upon further investigation, it turned out the female Muslim student had made the entire story up.

Coddling of the American Mind
New at AFP’s Online Store.

  • A black woman in Delaware fabricated a narrative that she had been verbally assaulted and berated by four white Trump-supporting males shortly after the 2016 election at a gas station. The woman made a lengthy Facebook post describing the alleged encounter, only to later delete it. Police in Delaware where the alleged incident took place told local media outlets shortly after the woman’s allegations gained media attention that “no such reports have been filed” and that “they haven’t heard from the alleged victim or anyone with information about a confrontation that occurred,” it was reported.
  • In December 2016, reports emerged that a white couple’s home in Texas was vandalized with racial slurs and their vehicles were set on fire in an apparent hate crime. The husband later admitted to his wife that he himself vandalized their home and set their vehicles on fire in an attempt to stage a hate crime. The couple had set up a crowdfunding page on the popular “GoFundMe” website to solicit donations in the wake of the alleged hate crime. “My heart is heavy, and I have more questions than answers,” the man’s wife said following the revelation her own husband committed the crimes. “My children and I are in a state of shock and sadness.”
  • A young Jewish man with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship was caught making over a thousand fake bomb and shooting threats against a number of institutions and groups, including a number of Jewish community centers, in early 2017, an incident this newspaper has covered extensively.
  • A Michigan transgender and LGBTQ activist was recently arrested for burning down his own home, after police initially investigated the arson as a suspected hate crime. It has since been revealed the activist burned his own home down in an effort to generate more support and sympathy for his political activism.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

How Democracy Is Losing the World

While dire situations are evident around the world, the U.S. media is fixated on destroying its president for a host of absurd reasons. Who can take the former “exemplar and champion” of democracy seriously anymore?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Donald Trump told Michael Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels about a one-night stand a decade ago, that, says Jerome Nadler, incoming chair of House Judiciary, would be an “impeachable offense.”

This tells you what social media, cable TV and the great herd of talking heads will be consumed with for the next two years—the peccadillos and misdeeds of Trump, almost all of which occurred before being chosen as president of the United States.

“Everywhere President Trump looks,” writes The Washington Times‘s Rowan Scarborough, “there are Democrats targeting him from New York to Washington to Maryland … lawmakers, state attorneys general, opposition researchers, bureaucrats, and activist defense lawyers.

“They are aiming at Russia collusion, the Trump Organization, the Trump Foundation, a Trump hotel, Trump tax returns, Trump campaign finances, and supposed money laundering.”

The full-court press is on. Day and night we will be hearing debate on the great question: Will the elites that loathe him succeed in bringing Trump down, driving him from office, and prosecuting and putting him in jail?

Says Adam Schiff, the incoming chair of the House intelligence committee: “Donald Trump may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time.”

And what will a watching world be thinking when it sees the once-great republic preoccupied with breaking yet another president?

Will that world think: Why can’t we be more like America?

Does the world still envy us our free press, which it sees tirelessly digging up dirt on political figures and flaying them with abandon?

Among the reasons democracy is in discredit and retreat worldwide is that its exemplar and champion, the USA, is beginning to resemble France’s Third Republic in its last days before World War II.

Also, democracy no longer has the field largely to itself as to how to create a prosperous and powerful nation-state.

This century, China has shown aspiring rulers how a single-party regime can create a world power, and how democracy is not a necessary precondition for extraordinary economic progress.

Vladimir Putin, an autocratic nationalist, has shown how a ruined nation can be restored to a great power in the eyes of its people and the world, commanding a new deference and respect.

Democracy is a bus you get off when it reaches your stop, says Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. After the attempted coup in the summer of 2017, Erdogan purged his government and military of tens of thousands of enemies and jailed more journalists than any other nation.

Yet he is welcomed in the capitals of the world.

Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan
Can America Survive to 2025?On SALE at AFP!

What does American democracy now offer the world as its foremost attribute, its claim to greatness?

“Our diversity is our strength!” proclaims this generation.

We have become a unique nation composed of peoples from every continent and country, every race, ethnicity, culture, and creed on Earth.

But is not diversity what Europe is openly fleeing from?

Is there any country of the Old Continent clamoring for more migrants from the Maghreb, sub-Sahara or Middle East?

Broadly, it seems more true to say that the world is turning away from transnationalism toward tribalism, and away from diversity and back to the ethno-nationalism whence the nations came.

The diversity our democracy has on offer is not selling.

Ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, such as the Uighurs and Tibetans in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar, minority black tribes in sub-Sahara Africa, and white farmers in South Africa, can testify that popular majority rule often means mandated restrictions or even an end to minority rights.

In the Middle East, free elections produced a Muslim Brotherhood president in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon. After this, a disillusioned Bush 43 White House called off the democracy crusade.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, relates how one minority is treated in much of the Muslim world:

“Christians face daily the threat of violence, murder, intimidation, prejudice, and poverty … .

Get Out of Cash“In the last few years, they have been slaughtered by so-called Islamic State. … Hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes. Many have been killed, enslaved, and persecuted or forcibly converted. Even those who remain ask the question, ‘Why stay?’

“Christian communities that were the foundation of the universal Church now face the threat of imminent extinction.”

And all the while this horror is going on, Ronald Reagan’s treaty that banned all U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles with a range between 310 and 3,400 miles faces collapses. And President Trump’s initiative to bring about a nuclear-free North Korea appears in peril.

Yet, for the next two years, we will be preoccupied with whether paying hush money to Stormy Daniels justifies removing a president, and exactly when Michael Cohen stopped talking to the Russians about his boss building a Trump Tower in Moscow.

We are an unserious nation, engaged in trivial pursuits, in a deadly serious world.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author several books available from the AFP Online Storeincluding Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.


Fake News Water Boy for the Deep State

Watergate “hero” Bob Woodward has always relied on dubious investigative tactics but now asks us to “trust him” that the anonymous quotes in his new anti-Trump book are true and trustworthy.

Publisher Simon & Schuster reported that Bob Woodward’s newest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, sold over 750,000 copies on its first day in print. Woodward skeptics and Watergate revisionists still question Woodward’s monarchical hold on modern journalism and publishing. In this issue, S. T. Patrick begins a series that will spotlight the questionable tactics and little-known fallacies of Bob Woodward’s journalistic career.

By S. T. Patrick

Implicit in the “Note to Readers” that opens Bob Woodward’s newest book, Fear: Trump in the White House, is an act of faith. Woodward wants the reader to trust him. “Interviews for this book were conducted under the journalistic ground rule of ‘deep background,’ ” Woodward writes.

Woodward, now an associate editor with The Washington Post, then defines “deep background.” He can use all information gathered from “hundreds of hours of interviews” with “firsthand participants and witnesses” whose names you’ll never know. In case the reader questions his accuracy in repeating these quotations and stories, Woodward then informs the public that “nearly all” of the interview participants have allowed him to record the conversations “so the story could be told with more precision.”

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

It is not clear how many interviews were actually conducted, nor is the specific percentage of recordings referred to as “nearly all.” This is important, because there is no evidence accompanying those unrecorded interviews. The interviewee would surely deny them, and the accuracy of such reports hinges on the reporter’s own trustworthiness. This is but one of the many problems with “deep background,” a journalistic information magnet strategy Woodward popularized during the Watergate era. Today, every interviewee for Fear is a Deep Throat.

Even when attributing exact quotations, Woodward admits that they may come from the person being quoted, but they may also stem from a colleague with direct knowledge or from someone’s meeting notes. But not all meeting notes are created equal, and because we do not know the source in many of these instances, we cannot question the motivations or backgrounds or prior relationships of the source attributing the quote, thought, or conclusion. Therefore, even the attributions are a cloudy haze of journalistic cloak-and-dagger games that Woodward mastered and legitimized to push his narratives to notable and profitable heights.

Fear is Woodward’s 19th book. His fame came from his Watergate reporting with co-author and fellow Washington Post journalist Carl Bernstein. That’s the story we are supposed to believe: It was the stellar work of a muckraking journalist that made him famous. The little guys hustled to bring down the Big Bad Wolves of Pennsylvania Avenue—the Nixon White House. All the President’s Men was released in 1974 and all the American stereotypes applied two years before the nation’s bicentennial: that hard work eventually triumphs, that good wins over evil, that David really can slay Goliath, and that the new Mr. Smiths going to Washington to speak truth to power are the journalists who work tirelessly to assure that truth reigns.

The problem with that red, white, and blue myth is that it was the stuff of Hollywood—literally. Woodward and Bernstein did not commit to writing All the President’s Men until actor Robert Redford had expressed interest in purchasing the film rights. In Telling the Truth About Lies: The Making of All the President’s Men, Woodward also noted that Redford urged “Woodstein” to change the narrative from a tale of Nixonian dirty deeds to one that was based on the journey of two journalists, Woodward and Bernstein. Redford would play the role of Woodward and Dustin Hoffman would play Bernstein. The film was nominated for Best Picture in 1976 but lost to Rocky. For Woodward and Bernstein, however, their careers were made. Redford and Hoffman perfectly portrayed everything Americans wanted their journalists to be, down to being sloppy dressers, coffee inhalers, and chain smokers. Most importantly, they were heroes.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

The film adaptation of Woodward and Bernstein’s first book coincided with the release of their second Nixon-era exposé, The Final Days. This book was different only in that its heroes were former and current military men, frustratingly skirting protocol and even law solely in an effort to save the republic from a president who had become unhinged. More than in All the President’s Men, Woodward’s pattern of assessing presidencies would begin in The Final Days.

The hero of The Final Days was Gen. Alexander Haig, retired from the Army and someone who had climbed the national security ranks to become chief of staff after the resignation of H.R. Haldeman. After Woodward and Bernstein, the hero of All the President’s Men had been Woodward’s “deep background” source, Deep Throat. Though Woodward revealed—or at least informed us—in 2005 that Deep Throat was FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, Watergate revisionists knew more about the real Bob Woodward than the mainstream media was portraying and had good reasons to question the trustworthiness of Felt as the lone, chief or majority source behind the revelations attributed to Deep Throat.

Woodward had his own secret origin, and it was one that would alter the way keen students of history and the Watergate era viewed his faux heroism, his journalistic methods, the role of Haig, and the character of Deep Throat.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected] He is also an occasional contributor to THE BARNES REVIEW (TBR) history magazine. For a sample copy of TBR, please send $2 to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 with your request. Editor’s choice. To subscribe to TBR magazine, send $56 per year inside the U.S. to above address.

The Unvarnished History of McCain

The continuing public portrayal of longtime Arizona Sen. McCain is at odds with the hard facts. It’s important that people understand the reality of John McCain’s life actions vs. the laudatory public and media remarks as one way to begin to see through the false narrative being fed to us via mainstream media on so many other issues, as well.

By Donald Jeffries

Judging by the Deep State’s response to the recent death of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an outsider would think that McCain had improved upon the legacy of George Washington.

Barack Obama spoke of McCain’s “courage” and declared, “We are all in his debt.”

Bill Clinton, in a joint statement issued with his wife, Hillary, stated “I will always be especially grateful for his leadership in our successful efforts to normalize relations with Vietnam.”

George W. Bush gushed, “John McCain was a man of deep conviction and a patriot of the highest order. He was a public servant in the finest traditions of our country.”

Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were only two of the many voices that categorized the career politician as a “true patriot.”

His fellow Arizona senator, Jeff Flake, called McCain “a hero and a statesman.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel led the international praise, lauding McCain’s lifetime of service to “freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.”

The tributes coming from every corner and pillar of the establishment indicate just how fully committed McCain was not to the ideals this country was founded upon but to the corrupt swamp that firmly controls American politics.

McCain was not any more principled in his personal life. His first wife, Carol, had waited faithfully for him during his five years of captivity in North Vietnam, from which he returned home to great fanfare in 1973. Carol, a former swimwear model, had been disfigured in a car crash, and gained a great deal of weight during a long recovery process. She refused to have her husband notified, insisting he had enough on his plate already. Ross Perot, a genuine American hero, quietly paid for all of her medical expenses. In 1980, McCain left Carol for a much younger woman, who happened to be the heiress to a huge beer fortune.

McCain’s new wife, Cindy, would later become addicted to drugs and was caught stealing prescription medication. In typical 1% fashion, she avoided the kind of punishment an average citizen would have received.

Ted Sampley, who at one time got into a physical altercation in a stairway of the Senate building with one of McCain’s aides, was quoted on McCain’s character in the June 7, 2008 edition of the UK’s Daily Mail: “I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is—deceit.”

He added, “When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. . . . Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. . . . This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.”

In the same article, Perot stated, “McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory. After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.”

McCain had the right connections for future military glory. Both his father and his grandfather were admirals. At the Naval Academy, McCain, a lifelong womanizer, developed a rebellious reputation and partied hard with a group of fellow officers who dubbed themselves the “Bad Bunch.”

Many others besides Donald Trump have pointed out that McCain was not a war hero.

Perfidy: Abandoning Our Prisoners of War
What was Sen. John McCain’s role in knowingly abandoning U.S. prisoners of war? Learn more at the AFP Online Store.

McCain worked harder than anyone else in Washington, D.C. to ensure that countless POWs and MIAs left behind in Vietnam would remain forgotten. Considering that McCain’s entire political career was constructed by portraying himself as a self-sacrificing, suffering POW himself, this is beyond ironic.

McCain’s performance on the John Kerry-led Senate Committee on POWs and MIAs was shameful. In his most dramatic display, an angry McCain walked out in disgust during the testimony of family members. On another occasion, he himself physically assaulted a group of POW-MIA activists, including an old woman in a wheelchair, in the corridors of the Senate.

McCain’s role as one of the members of the infamous Keating Five—a group of five corrupt senators who intervened on behalf of a wealthy bank swindler—has been all but forgotten by the mainstream media. The thoroughly corrupt McCain was exposed as a politician of the lowest order, for this scandal alone, and yet his political career actually ascended afterwards.

According to research done by Jerome Corsi and others, McCain is also tied to organized crime through his second father-in-law, James Hensley, who was convicted by a federal jury in 1948 of filing false liquor records and conspiracy to conceal the names of those involved in a liquor-industry racket behind the two companies he managed. One of the figures tied to Hensley was Kemper Marley, who had been accused of mob connections by reporter Don Bolles, who was murdered in a car bombing in 1976, most likely because of his reportage on the Mafia.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

McCain stood out as a war hawk, even among all the warmongers that fill the Washington, D.C. swamp. He never met a war, a bombing, an occupation, or an embargo that he didn’t like.

From the mid-1990s on, McCain was the loudest voice in the Senate blathering on about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq that clearly never existed. McCain would later famously pose for a photo with “brave fighters” that actually were affiliated with ISIS.

The list of embarrassing incidents, personal and political corruption, and reprehensible moral behavior is lengthy. McCain was certainly the antithesis of the “maverick” the establishment consistently proclaimed him to be.

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by AFP BOOKSTORE.

Ban on Popular Internet Host an Onslaught on Free Speech

Social media’s attack on “Infowars” and Alex Jones has spurred the usual partisan debate rather than genuine dialogue. But, like him or not, the banning of anyone harms free expression for everyone.

By S.T. Patrick

In  what may prove to be the best possible situation for Infowars and Alex Jones as brands, fiery talk show host Jones and his content have been banned from Facebook, Apple podcasts, YouTube, Stitcher Radio, Spotify, LinkedIn, and Pinterest. After Apple removed the podcasts because it “doesn’t tolerate hate speech,” downloads of the Infowars app on the iPhone app store reportedly skyrocketed.

Twitter has chosen to piecemeal its censorship. It has recently applied a one-week tweeting ban to Infowars and Jones. When the piling on began, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defended not banning Jones and Infowars altogether.

“The reason is simple,” Dorsey said. “He hasn’t violated our rules.”

While Twitter’s decision may just be a slower, more careful path that leads to an eventual full ban, Dorsey was correct that these sorts of bans should emanate from guidelines that are unemotional. The domino effect that occurred once the bans began also signaled some sort of permission and empowerment that began with the Facebook ban. The smaller multi-national social media corporations followed the lead of their Big(ger) Brother.

Kingdom Identity

Immediately after the bans were enacted, the debates became discombobulated. Mimicking any current dialogue on the Trump administration, the political right became angered and wanted revenge as the political left became celebratory with the glee of a conquering tribe. Those two reactions are the only ones Americans seem to exhibit since the 2016 presidential election. The reactions oscillate between the two camps in accordance with the latest Trump tweet, administrative policy announcement, or Mueller indictment.

Talk radio and partisan cable news have created a political environment steeped in absolute equality rather than ideology. If a Republican politician is criticized for opening a dialogue with a former enemy, the self-assigned duty of conservative talk radio hosts is to provoke the indignation of its audience by giving three examples of a Democrat engaged in the same action without such public criticism. When a liberal cable news network is criticized for its blatant partisanship, the response of its supportive viewers will be to point out the coverage bias of the conservative network. In the former, the pros and cons of opening the dialogue is secondary to pointing out hypocrisy. In the latter, a serious examination of one network is ignored while the other network exists. Pointing out hypocrisy is the contemporary way to absolve an organization or an ideology from moral, political, sociological, and environmental wrongs.

The Infowars and Jones bans should have instantly spurred two national discussions: the right and responsibility of social media companies (based on communication of beliefs and ideologies) to censor those same ideas and the right of a private company to serve only consumers it chooses while banning others.

Leftists and mainstream Republicans who have defended Jones have been clear to point out that they don’t like him or don’t listen to him. This near-mandatory preface to the support of free speech also stems from a confused political environment where to back a concept or an idea is synonymous with backing the person, and to attack a concept or idea is to attack the person. In a political discussion that is open and honest, discussion of free speech could and should be had without having to detach oneself from any support of Jones.

MIT professor, self-proclaimed anarchist, and free-speech activist Noam Chomsky wrote, “What I’ve seen of what he does is outrageous, but unlike many civil libertarians here and especially in other countries, I don’t think that the right way to deal with ‘hate speech’ and crazed fabrications is to ban them; rather, to confront them, and to seek and confront the reasons why anyone pays a moment’s attention to them.”

The power of the people certainly resides in its ability to freely consume or avoid entertainment or information. Before begging for censorship from opinions that may offend or anger, one should exercise the power button on the technology that serves as the conduit. Turn off the television, change the radio station, un-follow the page on Facebook, and refuse to subscribe to a Jones podcast on iTunes.

Censorship feeds some psycho-emotional need to be right. If an entity is censored, the opponents of that entity feel validated in their ideologies. But what if the slippery slope argument is legitimate and all ideologies are at risk when one is at risk?

In discussing the pressure being put on some retailers such as Amazon not to carry some controversial books, Joseph Green, a free-speech purist who hosts “,” wrote about the value of the better alternative books in 2016. “But we cannot have those books if we deny people the right to think, and write, in the public sphere. It is the cost of doing business in a free republic.”

Political science professor Joseph Uscinski told Global News, “The big corporations and the big government have censored (Jones’s) ideas. It’s only going to make them more alluring.”

The effects of the Jones censorship are multilayered. Will Jones have to tone down the screaming, frothing, and crying that emphatically dramatizes what can sometimes be good anti-authoritarian questions? Do the censorship’s effects on downloads of the Infowars app encourage Jones to go further? Will a real discussion be had regarding the relationship between liberal big tech CEOs and conservative consumers? Do the divisions caused by censorship debates take away attention from the violations of privacy rights, worker exploitation, and sexism that have plagued big tech?

The banning of Jones and Infowars can be explained away as an opening salvo to ban rabid Trumpism. A scarier, more worrisome explanation may be that it is the first open door to Euro-style censorship of ideas that many find offensive and uncouth. If either liberals or conservatives allow big tech companies to become the arbiters of those bans, everyone’s voice becomes a little more silent with every axe that falls.

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

Guess What? Crying Girl Story Is Fake News

By AFP Staff

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Sabotages Peace Efforts

Vladimir Putin’s attempts to foster global amity are being thwarted by U.S. warmongers while the presstitute media misrepresents “the destruction of peace agreements as necessary actions to protect Americans and the world from rogue states.”

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Trump regime has sabotaged Vladimir Putin’s peace efforts in Syria, Iran, Ukraine, and North Korea. In the interest of peace Putin has avoided responding to U.S. and Israeli provocations in Syria. Putin went so far as to invite the war criminal and genocidal maniac Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Russia for the celebration of Russia’s victory over Germany in World War II. Netanyahu accepted, but showed Putin who is boss by ordering illegal Israeli military attacks on Syrian army positions just prior to his departure for Russia.

Washington rewarded Putin’s peace efforts by occupying with U.S. and French troops the part of Syria still held by Washington’s mercenaries sent to overthrow Assad and by re-supplying the Muslim extremists Washington is using against Assad’s secular government. With U.S. and French troops present, Putin has halted the offensive to clear all of Syria of the foreign invaders. If Americans or French are killed, Putin knows that the demonization of Russia will reach a new high pitch and Washington will use it to counteract Europe’s dissatisfaction with Washington. The box into which Putin has been put by the Russian government’s misjudgment of U.S. and Israeli intentions allows continuing U.S.-led attacks on Syrian military positions.

Previously Putin blocked the planned U.S. invasion of Syria by arranging for all of Syria’s chemical weapons to be turned over to the West for destruction. The official chemical weapons inspection agency certified that Syria is devoid of chemical weapons. Putin’s reward is that U.S. government officials, the entirety of the U.S. media, and Washington’s British and French vassals have consistently blamed Syria for false-flag chemical attacks, and in the case of Douma a fake-news chemical attack that has been certified not to have taken place, on Assad.

The Trump regime has also sabotaged Putin’s peace effort in Iran. Putin brought the fake “Iranian nuke” crisis orchestrated by Washington and its presstitute media to an end by working out a multi-nation agreement that Iran would not produce weapons-grade nuclear material or enrich uranium beyond the low level used for nuclear energy. Official agencies certify that Iran has kept the agreement, but, despite the established facts, Washington and its presstitute media continue to  allege that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Trump, at the insistence of Netanyahu, has pulled the U.S. out of the multi-nation agreement signed by Iran, the U.S., Russia, China, UK, France, and Germany. Trump is re-imposing even harsher sanctions against Iran that heavily impact and harm European businesses.

The rest of the signatories to the Iran agreement say that they intend to continue with the agreement, and Trump has threatened the UK, France, and Germany with sanctions if they stick with the agreement that they signed in good faith.

China and Russia worked to reconcile North and South Korea and secured North Korea’s agreement to stop nuclear weapons tests. Peace between the Koreas was taking shape, but Trump has sabotaged this peace effort as well.

The presstitute media, a.k.a. Washington’s propaganda ministry, has misrepresented the destruction of peace agreements as necessary actions to protect Americans and the world from rogue states, but Israel is the only other government that agrees with Washington.

Now that Washington and Israel have sabotaged Putin’s diplomacy, Putin’s hope is that the result will isolate Washington from Washington’s European and British vassal states rather than isolate Russia, Syria, Iran, and North Korea from the rest of the world. There is much evidence that European leaders have had their fill of being treated as Washington’s slaves. Possibly they will throw off Washington’s control. On the other hand, except for France under DeGaulle, no European country has had an independent foreign or economic policy in 75 years. Moreover, European leaders are accustomed to relying on Washington providing their comfortable retirements, like Tony Blair’s $50 million, and European business interests would be harmed if Trump cuts them off from U.S. markets. How real a European revolt is remains to be seen.

There are great risks to Russia of relying on Europe’s revolt as Washington uses the time to regain what was lost in Syria to Putin’s initiative. In effect, Russia might be throwing away the victory in Syria. While the Russian government waits to see if the Anglo-Zionist Empire comes apart, Washington is organizing the jihadists Washington used against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and Assad to prepare an offensive against Russia and China through former Soviet central Asian republics such as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

A report by Andrey Afanasyev published at “Information Clearing House” claims “Special Service’s Agent: Attack on Russia Is Being Prepared.” I have checked out this story with Russian sources. What I learned is that Washington’s plan to use its jihadists to begin destabilizing Russia and China surfaced in Russia in the [recent] 7th Moscow International Conference on Security. Currently, Sergei Shoigu, the Russian minister of defense, is in Uzbekistan evaluating the situation with military and political leaders there.

Plot to Scapegoat Russia
Available from AFP Bookstore

The Russian government, the state TV channels, and establishment press are sitting on the information. Apparently, the Russian government doesn’t want this information out, as it could undermine public support for the peace agenda that the government favors. However, reports have been published in Russian news outlets Tsargrad, NewsFront, and Fergana.

Israel’s interest in the Middle East is expansion, which is inconsistent with peace. Israel needs conflict and the destabilization of Syria and Iran, Hezbollah’s suppliers, so that Israel can seize southern Lebanon. The American neoconservatives who are firmly entrenched in the Trump regime are de facto Israeli agents. Moreover, they are committed to American hegemony, which requires the overthrow of independent governments.

Putin is betting that Washington’s pursuit of hegemony in the Middle East will cost Washington hegemony in Europe. If Putin does not win this bet, he had better be prepared for the war that Washington, D.C. and Israel are aiming directly at Russia.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S.Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities and is the author of numerous books available at

Clinton Researcher Commits Suicide Before Releasing Info on Crime Couple

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

By Mark Anderson

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

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

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

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

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

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

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

Gideon Elite book cover


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at [email protected]

It Is the Presstitutes, Not Russia, Who Interfered in the US Presidential Election

Even Paul Craig Roberts can only shake his head in frustration, wondering why the U.S. increases, rather than decreases, tension with Russia—especially given continuing insistence by U.S. “leadership” and mainstream press that Russia interfered in the election, despite an utter lack of evidence.

By Paul Craig Roberts

Unlike Oliver Stone, who knew how to interview Vladimir Putin, Megyn Kelly did not. Thus, she made a fool of herself, which is par for her course.

Now the entire Western media has joined Megyn in foolishness, or so it appears from a RT report. James O’Keefe has senior CNN producer John Bonifield on video telling O’Keefe that CNN’s anti-Russia reporting is purely for ratings: “It’s mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don’t have any big giant proof.” CNN’s Bonifield is reported to go on to say that “our CIA is doing shit all the time, we’re out there trying to manipulate governments.”

And, of course, the American people, the European peoples, and the US and European governments are being conditioned by the “Russia did it” storyline to distrust Russia and to accept whatever dangerous and irresponsible policy toward Russia that Washington comes up with next.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Is the anti-Russian propaganda driven by ratings, as Bonifield is reported to claim, or are ratings the neoconservatives and military/security complex’s cover for media disinformation that increases tensions between the superpowers and prepares the ground for nuclear war?

RT acknowledges that the entire story could be just another piece of false news, which is all that the Western media is known for.

Nevertheless, what we do know is that the fake news reporting pertains to Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. presidential election. Allegedly, Trump was elected by Putin’s interference in the election. This claim is absurd, but if you are Megyn Kelly you lack the IQ to see that. Instead, presstitutes turn a nonsense story into a real story despite the absence of any evidence.

Who actually interfered in the U.S. presidential election, Putin or the presstitutes themselves? The answer is clear and obvious. It was the presstitutes, who were out to get Trump from day one of the presidential campaign. It is CIA director John Brennan, who did everything in his power to brand Trump some sort of Russian agent. It is FBI director Comey who did likewise by continuing to “investigate” what he knew was a non-event. We now have a former FBI director playing the role of special prosecutor investigating Trump for “obstruction of justice” when there is no evidence of a crime to be obstructed! What we are witnessing is the ongoing interference in the presidential election, an interference that not only makes a mockery of democracy but also of the rule of law.

Liberty Stickers

The presstitutes not only interfered in the presidential election; they are now interfering with democracy itself. They are seeking to overturn the people’s choice by discrediting the president of the United States and those who elected him. The Democratic Party is a part of this attack on American democracy. It is the DNC that insists that a Putin/Trump conspiracy stole the presidency from Hillary. The Democrats’ position is that it is too risky to permit the American people—the “deplorables”— to vote. The Democratic Party’s line is that if you let Americans vote, they will elect a Putin stooge and America will be ruled by Russia.

Many wonder why Trump doesn’t use the power of the office of the presidency to indict the hit squad that is out to get him. There is no doubt that a jury of deplorables would indict Brennan, Comey, Megyn Kelly, and the rest. On the other hand, perhaps Trump’s view is that the Republican Party cannot afford to go down with him, and, therefore, as he is politically protected by the Republican majority, the best strategy is to let the Democrats and the presstitutes destroy themselves in the eyes of flyover America.

What our survival as Americans depends on is the Russians’ view of this conflict between a U.S. president who intended to reduce the tensions between the nuclear powers and those determined to increase the tensions. The Russian high command has already announced its conclusion that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. It is not possible to imagine a more dangerous conclusion. So far, no one in Washington or any Western government has made an effort to reassure Russia that no such attack is being prepared. Instead, the calls are for more punishment of Russia and more tension.

This most extraordinary of failures demonstrates the complete separation of the West from reality.

It is difficult to imagine a more extreme danger than for the insouciant West to convince Russia that the West is incapable of rational behavior. But that is precisely what the West is doing.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities, and is the author of numerous books available at

Myopic Media Refuses to Name Bilderberg

U.S. corporate media is quick to report on “behind-the-scenes” parties influencing the Trump administration … as long as that list doesn’t include the Bilderberg Group. 

By Mark Anderson

CHANTILLY, Va.—The mind-numbing mainstream media blackout of the highly secretive Bilderberg group that was evident when this AFP writer wrote an initial June 3 dispatch on the June 1-4 Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Va. was still in place on Tuesday, June 6, at least in terms of American orthodox media.

Additional calls to the media to inquire about their Bilderberg coverage plans went unanswered, and a call to Chantilly’s Westfields Marriott to seek a press conference was completely brushed off, as the lady who answered the phone didn’t even bother getting a security spokesman or someone else to handle the simple request.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Yet, the Washington Post and the Kansas City Star—which in recent years broke the usual stifling silence about Bilderberg—instead published items on June 4 and June 5 pertaining to the very concept of illicit, behind-the-scenes influence on government, even while these “courageous” news outlets somehow failed to include Bilderberg in that important equation.

Here are two clear examples of such media misfires:

  • ITEM: As this AFP writer picked up the June 4 Washington Post, the front-page headline “Shadow network aided Trump’s rise to power” leapt off the page. But a quick read of the text disappointingly revealed that the nefarious “network” being named was the “far right” and some its champions, as perceived by the big media, Trump advisor Stephen Bannon and 1960s leftist radical-turned-conservative author David Horowitz.

Take note that the Post is all aflutter that these guys and their associates—but clearly not Bilderberg—are networking to strongly influence the policies of the U.S. government from backstage.

Furthermore, the Post is fretting that Horowitz created in 1988 the Center for the Study of Popular Culture as a “charity,” while noting that IRS rules that regulate charities stipulate “a substantial part” of a tax-exempt charity’s funds cannot be spent on “lobbying” or “carrying on propaganda.”

However, the Washington Post Company itself, as this writer has often reported, gave $25,000 to the American Friends of Bilderberg (AFB), according to the its 2008 “990 PF” tax filing.

The AFB is registered as a charity in the state of New York, though as a “private foundation.” Since the only listed activity of the AFB is addressing “problems of the Western Alliance” mainly by “sponsoring the annual Bilderberg Meetings,” there is no evidence whatsoever of AFB charitable activities, but plenty of evidence of “carrying on propaganda”—even while a substantial part of the AFB’s funds does go into tinkering with the economic and political machinery of the West via the hyper-exclusive Bilderberg Meetings.

  • ITEM: The Kansas City Star—which last year ran a sizable story about Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) attending Bilderberg for the first time in Dresden, Germany—went stone-cold silent on Bilderberg this year (even though Graham attended this year’s Bilderberg, too) but still managed to run a guest column on how Graham has been exercising improper and excessive influence in U.S. dealings with foreign nations, especially Israel. The columnist is Robert Leonard, an anthropologist who hosts a public affairs program for KNIA/KRLS radio in Knoxville/Pella, Iowa.

Graham, as Leonard wrote in the Star, spoke at a political event (back when Graham sought the GOP nod to run for president) where the moderator noted that he was impressed by Graham’s prominence on the world stage and that Graham had taken a phone call from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Gideon Elite book cover

“I was surprised,” Leonard wrote. “I have always assumed that conversations between world leaders and members of Congress happened at the request of the administration and that they didn’t happen during a car ride across the Iowa countryside by a senator running for president with guests and staffers in the car.

“But my gut told me it was wrong. I could see the conversation only as potentially undermining the Obama administration’s official policy toward Israel. After all, Graham was then in the opposition party and seeking the nomination for president.”

Watch an on-the-scene video from AFP’s Mark Anderson by clicking below:

Leonard added: “Let’s assume that Graham’s behavior is consistent with that of other members of Congress. If that’s true, it means that they’re talking willy-nilly with world leaders, their staffs and representatives. All the time. One can also assume that these conversations are not benign. They are all negotiations of one sort or another.”

What Leonard meant (though he didn’t go far enough) was that sitting senators and other elected and appointed officials should not be making policy with foreign leaders (or by extension, with foreign corporate titans) “off the grid” and independent of the executive branch.

Yet both Sen. Graham and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who are bookends in terms of the pro-war, neoconservative faction of the Republican Party, attended Bilderberg this year. So did four White House officials: equally hawkish National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Deputy National Security Advisor Nadia Schadlow, and Christopher Liddell, a strategic advisor.

Speaking of Graham’s highway diplomacy, Leonard asked, “When would such a conversation constitute treason?”

But what Leonard doesn’t note is that the Logan Act, a law from the 1790s and still on the books, prohibits U.S. citizens from lobbying, negotiating or engaging in deal-making with foreign officials without express permission from the head of state. And the Bilderberg Meetings, which have been happening for 65 years, represent the ultimate convergence of corporate, media, banking and political power behind closed doors, where no press conferences are given and only vague topics and an attendees list are published to placate onlookers.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at [email protected]