Will the Trump Administration Overdose on Authoritarianism?

Not only is the war on drugs unconstitutional, it also leads to richer and more powerful black-market drug cartels, increased violence, more lethal drugs, destruction of individual civil liberties both in the U.S. and abroad, and violates the bedrock of a free society—the nonaggression principle. President Trump has instructed his attorney general to “seek the maximum penalty” for even nonviolent drug-related offenses. Time will tell whether he’ll direct Sessions to violate states’ rights to determine their own drug laws as well.

By Ron Paul

Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered federal prosecutors in drug cases to seek the maximum penalty authorized by federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Sessions’s order represents a setback to the progress made toward restoring compassion and common sense to the sentencing process over the past few years. Sessions’s action also guarantees that many nonviolent drug law offenders will continue spending more time in prison than murderers.

Sessions’s support for mandatory minimums is no surprise, as he has a history of fanatical devotion to the drug war. Sessions’s pro-drug war stance is at odds with the reality of the drug war’s failure. Over 40 years after President Nixon declared war on drugs, the government cannot even keep drugs out of prisons!

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

As was the case with alcohol prohibition, the drug war has empowered criminal gangs and even terrorists to take advantage of the opportunity presented by prohibition to profit by meeting the continued demand for drugs. Drug prohibition enables these criminal enterprises to make profits far above the potential profits if drugs where legalized. Ironically, the so-called “law-and-order” politicians who support the drug war are helping enrich the very criminals they claim to oppose!

The war on drugs also makes street drugs more lethal by incentivizing the creation of more potent and, thus, more dangerous drugs. Of course, even as Sessions himself admits, the war on drugs also leads to increased violence, as drug dealers cannot go to the courts to settle disputes among themselves or with their customers.

Before 9/11, the war on drugs was the go-to excuse used to justify new infringements on liberty. For example, laws limiting our ability to withdraw, or even carry, large sums of cash and laws authorizing civil asset forfeiture were justified by the need to crack down on drug dealers and users. The war on drugs is also the root cause of the criminal justice system’s disparate treatment of minorities and the militarization of local police.

Liberty Stickers

The war on drugs is a war on the Constitution as well. The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate, much less ban, drugs. People who doubt this should ask themselves why it was necessary to amend the Constitution to allow the federal government to criminalize drinking alcohol but not necessary to amend the Constitution to criminalize drug use.

Today, a majority of states have legalized medical marijuana, and a growing number are legalizing recreational marijuana use. Enforcement of federal laws outlawing marijuana in those states is the type of federal interference with state laws that conservatives usually oppose. Hopefully, in this area the Trump administration will exercise restraint and respect state marijuana laws.

Sessions’s announcement was not the only pro-drug war announcement made by the administration this week. President Trump himself, in a meeting with the president of Colombia, promised to continue U.S. intervention in South and Central America to eliminate drug cartels. President Trump, like his attorney general, seems to not understand that the rise of foreign drug cartels, like the rise of domestic drug gangs, is a consequence of U.S. drug policy.

The use of government force to stop adults from putting certain substances into their bodies—whether marijuana, saturated fats, or raw milk—violates the nonaggression principle that is the bedrock of a free society. Therefore, all those who care about protecting individual liberty and limiting government power should support ending the drug war. Those with moral objections to drug use should realize that education and persuasion, carried out through voluntary institutions like churches and schools, is a more moral and effective way to discourage drug use than relying on government force.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, online at www.ronpaulinstitute.org.




Manchester Bomber Was Product of West’s Libya/Syria Intervention

By Daniel McAdams

Here’s what the media and politicians don’t want you to know about the Manchester, UK, suicide attack: Salman Abedi, the 22-year-old who killed nearly two dozen concert-goers in Manchester, UK, was the product of the U.S. and UK overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya and “regime change” policy in Syria. He was a radicalized Libyan whose family fled Gaddafi’s secular Libya, and later trained to be an armed “rebel” in Syria, fighting for the U.S. and UK “regime change” policy toward the secular Assad government.

The suicide attacker was the direct product of U.S. and UK interventions in the greater Middle East.

 

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to the London Telegraph, Abedi, a son of Libyan immigrants living in a radicalized Muslim neighborhood in Manchester, had returned to Libya several times after the overthrow of Muamar Gaddafi, most recently just weeks ago. After the U.S./UK and allied “liberation” of Libya, all manner of previously outlawed and fiercely suppressed radical jihadist groups suddenly found they had free rein to operate in Libya. This is the Libya that Abedi returned to and where he likely prepared for his suicide attack on pop-concert attendees. Before the U.S.-led attack on Libya in 2011, there was no al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other related terrorist organization operating (at least with impunity) on Libyan soil.

Gaddafi himself warned Europe in January 2011 that if they overthrew his government the result would be radical Islamist attacks on Europe, but European governments paid no heed to the warnings. Post-Gaddafi Libya became an incubator of Islamist terrorists and terrorism, including prime recruiting ground for extremists to fight jihad in Syria against the also-secular Bashar Assad.

Gideon Elite book cover

In Salman Abedi we have the convergence of both these disastrous U.S./UK and allied interventions, however: It turns out that not only did Abedi make trips to Libya to radicalize and train for terror, but he also travelled to Syria to become one of the “Syria rebels” fighting on the same side as the U.S. and UK to overthrow the Assad government. Was he perhaps even trained in a CIA program? We don’t know, but it certainly is possible.

While the mainstream media and opportunistic politicians will argue that the only solution is more Western intervention in the Middle East, the plain truth is that at least partial responsibility for this attack lies at the feet of those who pushed and pursued Western intervention in Libya and Syria.

There would have been no jihadist training camps in Libya had Gaddafi not been overthrown by the U.S./UK and allies. There would have been no explosion of ISIS or al-Qaeda in Syria had it not been for the U.S./UK and allied policy of “regime change” in that country.

When thinking about Abedi’s guilt for this heinous act of murder, do not forget those interventionists who lit the fuse that started this conflagration. The guilt rests squarely on their shoulders as well.

Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer. This column was originally published at the RonPaulInstitute.org.



Unsealed FISA Court Order Reveals Warrantless Surveillance by Obama Administration in 2016

While Trump’s Justice Department has stepped in to slightly limit the surveillance reach of U.S. intelligence agencies, we may have a much bigger problem than most Americans realize when it comes to the guidelines intended to safeguard our 4th Amendment rights.

By Robert Romano

An unsealed April 26 court ruling from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court found that the Obama administration had violated “the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously disclosed to the Court.”

Under FISA, the court is supposed to determine whether the minimization procedures—those that are supposed to seal the identities of U.S. persons swept up in foreign surveillance—comply with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

An example of those rules falls under USSID 18, which governs the collection, retention, and then dissemination of foreign intelligence gathered to and from U.S. persons.

Those rules are promulgated by the attorney general under 50 USC 1801(h)(2), which provides that they include “procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1), shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance.”

Under USSID 18, to have kept the communications would have required either sign-off from the attorney general if he or she believes that the “contents indicate a threat of death or seriously bodily harm to any person,” under Section 5.4.a., or the director of the National Security Agency, under 5.4.d., if he or she determines the communications contain “significant foreign intelligence” or “evidence of a crime or threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.”

For these U.S. persons to have been included in a report for dissemination could have only occurred if, under Section 7.2.c., the “appropriate approval authority” determined “[t]he identity of the U.S. person is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance” or “[t]he information is evidence that the individual may be involved in a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be committed, provided that the dissemination is for law enforcement purposes.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

What the FISA Court is saying in its April 26 ruling is that these bare minimal rules, which do not even require a warrant to unmask a U.S. person, were not being followed. Since all the agents must show is that the information is relevant to foreign intelligence matters, that is saying something. The only explanation is that, in those cases, the searches had no bearing on foreign intelligence gathering.

According to reporting by John Solomon and Sarah Carter of “Circa.com,” “More than 5%, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.”

Circa could not ascertain how many such inappropriate searches had occurred, as the information was classified, but it does provide a window into how the FISA Court responds to these instances even when there are violations.

The federal government under Attorney General Jeff Sessions has since applied to the FISA Court to change those minimization rules on March 30, which the court granted on April 26. Two days later, on April 28, the National Security Agency issued a statement that it “will no longer collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target.”

According to the court ruling, “Under the revised procedures, the government may acquire communications to which United States persons and persons within the United States are parties when such persons communicate with a Section 702 target.”

The court praised this move, stating, “The Court agrees that the removal of ‘abouts’ communications eliminates the types of communications presenting the Court the greatest level of constitutional and statutory concern.”

This appears to indicate American citizens who were merely mentioning the name of a foreign target were being subjected to surveillance and potentially unmasked without warrants.

Liberty Stickers

Information previously gathered on this basis will now be destroyed: “Revisions to the NSA Minimization Procedures now state that all Internet transactions acquired on or before [March 17] and existing in NSA’s institutionally managed repositories will be sequestered pending destruction such that ‘NSA personnel will not be able to access the[m] for analytical purposes.’ NSA will destroy such sequestered Internet transactions as soon as practicable through an accelerated age-off process.”

The new rules appear to be a sharp departure from previous practice, but do they go far enough to reform minimization abuses?

In assessing whether minimization procedures are constitutional, the court applies the so-called reasonableness standard, that is, those exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement to perform a search. These typically include situations such as a police officer witnessing a crime in progress or conducting a search during the course of a lawful arrest. Nearly all of these exceptions require some nexus to criminal activity in order to justify the search. Generally, if there is no crime, then no search can be justified.

The standard used by the FISA Court, however, does not consider any of that. Foreign intelligence gathering in itself is not focused on gathering information about crimes but about threats to national security or the workings of foreign powers.

Yet, the FISA Court still uses the same precedents and language from 4th Amendment Supreme Court cases to justify itself: “In assessing the reasonableness of a governmental intrusion under the Fourth Amendment, a court must ‘balance the interests at stake’ under the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ … Specifically, a court must ‘balance … the degree of the government’s intrusion on individual privacy’ against ‘the degree to which that intrusion furthers the government’s legitimate interest.’ … ‘The more important the government’s interest, the greater the intrusion that may be constitutionally tolerated.’”

These standards were established in various cases involving traffic stops and arrests in criminal contexts. For example, in Riley v. California (2014), where the Supreme Court ruled that the contents of a cellular phone could not be searched without a warrant even when a lawful arrest has occurred. Or Wyoming v. Houghton (1999), where the nation’s highest court ruled that the contents of a vehicle could be searched without a warrant if the police had reason to believe it had been used in the commission of a crime or contained contraband.

In every case, for a warrantless search to occur, some sort of criminality was needed, and even then, certain restrictions were applied to the extent the search was constitutional.

Not so in the FISA Court, we now know, where intelligence is gathered without regards to criminality. Which is why the disclosure of classified intelligence that includes U.S. person identifiers—so-called incidental collection as happened in the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn—is such a serious crime, so that mere contacts with foreign intelligence surveillance targets are not used to create the appearance of being a foreign agent or to create legal jeopardy.

All of this raises serious constitutional questions of how FISA has been applied on U.S. soil.

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning urged Congress to slow down reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA in a statement, saying: “The implications of the Obama administration unmasking hundreds of targeted people unconstitutionally leads any reasonable person to wonder how precisely this illegally gained information was used. In light of the obvious abuse of power in the Mike Flynn case of leaking Flynn’s name to the press after being unmasked for political reasons, it becomes reasonable to assume that was the intent of these unmaskings all along, and calls into question the continuance of the entire program.”

NWO in Action cover

When it comes to U.S. persons and persons on U.S. soil, the American people should consider whether they want the federal government conducting warrantless searches where no criminal activity is implicated, a constitutionally dubious standard.

If a criminality standard had been applied, Flynn’s conversation might not have ever been intercepted in the first place.

But even if that were a bridge too far for Congress—because recording every conversation by foreign ambassadors on U.S. soil is somehow deemed essential—Congress should consider the fact that the attorney general can apparently, according to the FISA Court, just reinstitute “abouts” collection at his discretion.

As the court states: “This Opinion and Order does not question the propriety of acquiring ‘abouts’ communications and MCTs as approved by the Court since 2011, subject to the rigorous safeguards imposed on such acquisitions. The concerns raised in the current matters stem from NSA’s failure to adhere fully to those safeguards.”

In other words, unless Congress acts, these types of warrantless searches—where a person who says “Kisylak” or “Putin” on the phone might be intercepted and recorded and that person’s identity might be unmasked without a warrant even if no crime has been committed—could just be reinstituted later.

The Justice Department under Sessions is to be applauded for discontinuing this practice for the moment, but Congress should act to make certain these types of abuses never happen again.

The Church Committee was convened in 1975 to get to the bottom of revelations by Seymour Hersh’s explosive report to The New York Times on Dec. 22, 1974 that the CIA had been engaged in a mass, domestic surveillance program against anti-war protestors, members of Congress, and other political figures.

We are on the edge of the abyss of tyranny Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) warned about in 1975.

To the extent the American people presently look the other way in terms of foreign government officials being under constant surveillance on U.S. soil, even with warrants, they will not do so if they believe their own activities are under threat to come under scrutiny without warrants merely because they took an interest in foreign affairs.

Or if these powers are being used against political opponents, as apparently happened in the last year of the Obama administration, against the Trump campaign and then transition after the election.

If Congress is not currently telling itself, “Never again”—if it believes such political surveillance against the opposition party in an election year is somehow justified on the most dubious of grounds—then we’ve got a bigger problem than most people realize.

Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.




America’s Reign of Terror: A Nation Reaps What It Sows

The shadow government’s tyranny has made the U.S. the biggest purveyor of terrorism on the planet. And it’s the American people suffering the consequences.

By John Whitehead

“The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” ― James Madison

Who designed the malware worm that is now wreaking havoc on tens of thousands of computers internationally by hackers demanding a king’s ransom? The U.S. government.

Who is the biggest black market buyer and stockpiler of cyberweapons (weaponized malware that can be used to hack into computer systems, spy on citizens, and destabilize vast computer networks)? The U.S. government.

What country has one the deadliest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction? The U.S. government.

Who is the largest weapons manufacturer and exporter in the world, such that they are literally arming the world? The U.S. government.

Which is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in wartime? The United States.

How did Saddam Hussein build Iraq’s massive arsenal of tanks, planes, missiles, and chemical weapons during the 1980s? With help from the U.S. government.

Who gave Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida “access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry”? The U.S. government.

What country has a pattern and practice of entrapment that involves targeting vulnerable individuals, feeding them with the propaganda, know-how and weapons intended to turn them into terrorists, and then arresting them as part of an elaborately orchestrated counterterrorism sting? The U.S. government.

Where did ISIS get many of their deadliest weapons, including assault rifles and tanks to anti-missile defenses? From the U.S. government.

Which country has a history of secretly testing out dangerous weapons and technologies on its own citizens? The U.S. government.

Are you getting the picture yet?

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The U.S. government isn’t protecting us from terrorism.

The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror.

Just think about it for a minute: almost every tyranny being perpetrated against the citizenry—purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure—has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by our own government.

Cyberwarfare. Terrorism.

Bio-chemical attacks. The nuclear arms race.

Surveillance. The drug wars.

In almost every instance, the U.S. government has in its typical Machiavellian fashion sown the seeds of terror domestically and internationally in order to expand its own totalitarian powers.

It’s time to wake up and stop being deceived by government propaganda.

We’re not dealing with a government that exists to serve its people, protect their liberties and ensure their happiness. Rather, these are the diabolical machinations of a make-works program carried out on an epic scale whose only purpose is to keep the powers-that-be permanently (and profitably) employed.

Case in point: For years now, the U.S. government has been creating what one intelligence insider referred to as a cyber-army capable of offensive attacks.

As Reuters reported back in 2013:

Even as the U.S. government confronts rival powers over widespread Internet espionage, it has become the biggest buyer in a burgeoning gray market where hackers and security firms sell tools for breaking into computers. The strategy is spurring concern in the technology industry and intelligence community that Washington is in effect encouraging hacking and failing to disclose to software companies and customers the vulnerabilities exploited by the purchased hacks. That’s because U.S. intelligence and military agencies aren’t buying the tools primarily to fend off attacks. Rather, they are using the tools to infiltrate computer networks overseas, leaving behind spy programs and cyber-weapons that can disrupt data or damage systems.

As part of this cyberweapons programs, government agencies such as the NSA have been stockpiling all kinds of nasty malware, viruses and hacking tools that can “steal financial account passwords, turn an iPhone into a listening device, or, in the case of Stuxnet, sabotage a nuclear facility.”

And now we learn that the NSA is responsible for the latest threat posed by the “WannaCry” or “Wanna Decryptor” malware worm, which—as a result of hackers accessing the government’s arsenal—has hijacked more than 57,000 computers and crippled health care, communications infrastructure, logistics, and government entities in more than 70 countries already.

Liberty Stickers

All the while the government was repeatedly warned about the dangers of using criminal tactics to wage its own cyberwars.

It was warned about the consequences of blowback should its cyberweapons get into the wrong hands.

The government chose to ignore the warnings.

That’s exactly how the 9/11 attacks unfolded.

First, the government helped to create the menace that was al-Qaida and then, when bin Laden had left the nation reeling in shock (despite countless warnings that fell on tone-deaf ears), it demanded—and was given—immense new powers in the form of the USA Patriot Act in order to fight the very danger it had created.

This has become the shadow government’s modus operandi regardless of which party controls the White House: the government creates a menace—knowing full well the ramifications such a danger might pose to the public—then without ever owning up to the part it played in unleashing that particular menace on an unsuspecting populace, it demands additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threat.

Yet the powers-that-be don’t really want us to feel safe.

They want us cowering and afraid and willing to relinquish every last one of our freedoms in exchange for their phantom promises of security.

As a result, it’s the American people who pay the price for the government’s insatiable greed and quest for power.

We’re the ones to suffer the blowback.

Blowback: a term originating from within the American Intelligence community, denoting the unintended consequences, unwanted side-effects, or suffered repercussions of a covert operation that fall back on those responsible for the aforementioned operations.

As historian Chalmers Johnson explains, “blowback is another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows.”

Unfortunately, “we the people” are the ones who keep reaping what the government sows.

We’re the ones who suffer every time, directly and indirectly, from the blowback.

We’re made to pay trillions of dollars in blood money to a military ind
ustrial complex that kills without conscience. We’ve been saddled with a crumbling infrastructure, impoverished cities and a faltering economy while our tax dollars are squandered on lavish military installations and used to prop up foreign economies. We’ve been stripped of our freedoms. We’re treated like suspects and enemy combatants. We’re spied on by government agents: our communications read, our movements tracked, our faces mapped, our biometrics entered into a government database. We’re terrorized by militarized police who roam our communities and SWAT teams that break into our homes. We’re subjected to invasive patdowns in airports, roadside strip searches and cavity probes, forced blood draws.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

We can persuade ourselves that life is still good, that America is still beautiful, and that “we the people” are still free.

However, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the moment you tune out the carefully constructed distractions—the year-round sports entertainment, the political theatrics, the military’s war cries, the president’s chest-thumping, and the techno-gadgets and social media that keep us oblivious to what’s really going on in the world around us—you quickly find that the only credible threat to our safety and national security is in fact the government itself.

Police State Books John Whitehead

As science fiction writer Philip K. Dick warned, “Don’t believe what you see; it’s an enthralling—[and] destructive, evil snare. Under it is a totally different world, even placed differently along the linear axis.”

In other words, all is not as it seems.

The powers-that-be are not acting in our best interests.

“We the people” are not free.

The government is not our friend.

And America will never be safe or secure as long as our government continues to pillage and plunder and bomb and bulldoze and kill and create instability and fund insurgencies and police the globe.

So what can we do to stop the blowback, liberate the country from the iron-clad grip of the military industrial complex, and get back to a point where freedom actually means something?

For starters, get your priorities in order. As long as Americans are more inclined to be offended over the fate of a Confederate statue rather than the government’s blatant disregard for the Constitution and human rights, then the status quo will remain.

Stop playing politics with your principles. As long as Americans persist in thinking like Republicans and Democrats—refusing to recognize that every administration in recent years has embraced and advanced the government’s authoritarian tactics—then the status quo will remain.

Value all human life as worthy of protection. As long as Americans, including those who claim to value the sanctity of human life, not only turn a blind eye to the government’s indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians but champion them, then the status quo will remain.

Recognize that in the eyes of the government, we’re all expendable. As long as we allow the government to play this dangerous game in which “we the people” are little more than pawns to be used, abused, easily manipulated and just as easily discarded—whether it’s under the guise of national security, the war on terror, the war on drugs, or any other manufactured bogeyman it can dream up—then the status quo will remain.

Demand that the government stop creating, stockpiling and deploying weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical, biological, cyber, etc. As long as the government continues to use our tax dollars to create, stockpile and deploy weapons of mass destruction—whether those weapons are meant to kill, maim or disable (as in the case of the WannaCry computer virus)—we will be vulnerable to anyone who attempts to use those weapons against us and the status quo will remain.

Finally, stop supporting the war machine and, as Chalmers Johnson suggests, “bring our rampant militarism under control”:

From George Washington’s “farewell address” to Dwight Eisenhower’s invention of the phrase “military-industrial complex,” American leaders have warned about the dangers of a bloated, permanent, expensive military establishment that has lost its relationship to the country because service in it is no longer an obligation of citizenship. Our military operates the biggest arms sales operation on earth; it rapes girls, women and schoolchildren in Okinawa; it cuts ski-lift cables in Italy, killing twenty vacationers, and dismisses what its insubordinate pilots have done as a “training accident”; it allows its nuclear attack submarines to be used for joy rides for wealthy civilian supporters and then covers up the negligence that caused the sinking of a Japanese high school training ship; it propagandizes the nation with Hollywood films glorifying military service (Pearl Harbor); and it manipulates the political process to get more carrier task forces, antimissile missiles, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers and other expensive gadgets for which we have no conceivable use. Two of the most influential federal institutions are not in Washington but on the south side of the Potomac River–the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. Given their influence today, one must conclude that the government outlined in the Constitution of 1787 no longer bears much relationship to the government that actually rules from Washington. Until that is corrected, we should probably stop talking about “democracy” and “human rights.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available from the American Free Press bookstore. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].




Truth Has Become Un-American

Do the Russians and Chinese understand the true reason for Washington’s hostility toward them? Or to whom the U.S. military/security complex is truly answering? An overwhelming majority of Americans certainly don’t seem to have a clue what’s going on.

By Paul Craig Roberts

Those of us who have exited The Matrix are concerned that there are no checks on Washington’s use of nuclear weapons in the interest of U.S. hegemony over the world.

Washington and Israel are the threats to peace. Washington demands world hegemony, and Israel demands hegemony in the Middle East.

There are two countries that stand in the way of Washington’s world hegemony—Russia and China. Consequently, Washington has plans for preemptive nuclear strikes against both countries. It is difficult to imagine a more serious threat to mankind, and there is no awareness or acknowledgment of this threat among the Congress, the presstitute media, and the general public in the United States and Washington’s European vassal populations.

Two countries and a part of a third stand in the way of Greater Israel. Israel wants the water resources of southern Lebanon, but cannot get them, despite twice sending in the Israeli Army, because of the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, which is supplied by Syria and Iran. This is why Syria and Iran are on Washington’s hit list. Washington serves the military/security complex, Wall Street, and the over-sized U.S. banks, and Israel.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

It is unclear if the Russians and Chinese understand that Washington’s hostility toward them is not just some sort of misunderstanding that diplomacy can work out.

Clearly, Russia hasn’t interfered in the U.S. presidential election or invaded Ukraine, and does not intend to invade Poland or the Baltics. Russia let go the Soviet empire and is glad to see it gone, as the empire was expensive and of little benefit. The Soviet Eastern European empire comprised Stalin’s buffer against another Western invasion. The Warsaw Pact had no offensive meaning. It was not the beginning, as misrepresented in Washington, of Soviet world domination.

I see a lack of clarity about the threat that Russia faces in Russian media reports and articles posted on Russian English language websites. I see a lack of clarity in Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s continued efforts to work out an accommodation with Washington. How can Lavrov work out an accommodation with Washington, which intends to dominate or isolate Russia?

Lavrov and Russian media organizations do not always show awareness that it is not Washington’s intention to accommodate other national interests.

It can not be otherwise for these three reasons:

  1. The budget for the U.S. military/security complex is the largest in the world. It is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of many countries. It includes not only the Pentagon’s budget but also the budgets of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy, which is the location of the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant and 16 other national laboratories. When all the elements are added together, the military/security complex has annually the power and profit from $1,000 billion. An empire of this sort just doesn’t give up and go away because some president or some part of the electorate want peace. The “Russian Threat” is essential to the power and profit of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 56 years ago. Just imagine how entrenched this power is now.
  2. The neoconservatives, who control both U.S. foreign policy and the Western media’s explanation of it, are mainly Jews of Zionist persuasion. Some are dual Israeli-U.S. citizens. The neoconservatives believe that the collapse of Soviet communism means that History has chosen the United States as the socio-politico-economic system, and that the U.S. government has the responsibility to assert the hegemony of America over the Earth. Just read the neocon documents. They assert this over and over. This is what it means that America is the exceptional and indispensable nation. If you are the indispensable nation, every other nation is dispensable. If you are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. The claim that the neoconservatives make for the U.S. is similar to the claim that Hitler made for Germany.
  3. As Israel controls U.S. Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel’s expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government and chaos in Iraq, Washington’s war on Syria, and Washington’s demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war.

For the Russian Foreign Minister to believe that it is possible to reach an accommodation with Washington, other than a Russian surrender, is nonsense. Perhaps this is Lavrov’s use of diplomacy to delay the U.S. attack while Russia prepares. Or perhaps Lavrov is just a diplomat who sticks to his last, despite the facts.

Much of the Russian media, both in Russian and foreign language broadcasts and websites, thinks that the Western misrepresentation of Russia is just a mistake and that that facts, once they are established, can rectify the mistake. These Russian journalists don’t understand that Washington could not care less about facts. Washington desperately needs an enemy, and Russia is the enemy of choice.

The Chinese government seems to think that Wall Street and U.S. corporations are too dependent on the cheap Chinese manufacturing labor, which keeps the U.S. system fueled with profits, to jeopardize these profits by going to war.Gideon Elite book cover

By underplaying the risk of war, Russia and China fail to mobilize world opposition to Washington’s recklessness and, thereby, enable Washington’s move toward war.

The presstitutes serving the National Security State continue to drive toward conflict. Consider Newsweek’s May 28, 2017, cover story with Putin on the cover and the caption: “The Plot Against America: Inside Putin’s Campaign to Destroy Democracy in the U.S.”

It is difficult to imagine such ignorant nonsense from a mainstream news magazine. Democracy in America has been destroyed by special interest groups, by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave the reins of power to special interest groups, and by a hoax war on terror that has destroyed the U.S. Constitution. And here we have the presstitutes saying that Putin is destroying American democracy. Clearly, there is no extant intelligence anywhere in the Western media. The Western presstitutes are either corrupt beyond belief or ignorant beyond belief. Nothing else can be said for them.

Consider Time magazine’s cover for May 29, 2017. It depicts Trump turning the White House into the foundation for the Kremlin, which rises above the White House, symbolizing America’s subservience to Russia under President Trump. This extraordinary propaganda seems to be readily accepted by the bulk of the Western populations, peoples who will die as a result of their insouciance. [And who do not know the difference between the Kremlin and St. Basil’s Cathedral. Ed.]

Even writers critical of Washington, such as Paul Street’s recent article on “CounterPunch” and the English language Russian website, “Strategic Culture Foundation,” cannot bring themselves to state the truth that the U.S. military/security complex needs a major enemy, has elected Russia for that role, and intends to defend this orchestration to the end of humanity on Earth.

Street writes about “How Russia Became ‘Our Adversary’ Again.” According to Street, Russia became the enemy of choice because Russia protected part of the world’s population and resources from being exploited by global capital. Russia became the number one enemy of the U.S. also because Putin stopped the American exploitation of Russia economically. Putin is in the way of Washington’s exploitation of the world.

Much of what Street says is correct, but he is hesitant to state it in a straightforward manner. He has to dilute his message by repeating the obligatory propaganda. Street calls Trump, who originally wanted normal relations with Russia, an “orange-haired brute . . . [who admires] Putin’s authoritarian manliness.”

Trump’s problems originated in his goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary is the brute who intended to worsen the relations.

Putin is a democrat, not an authoritarian. The authoritarians are in Washington. Surely Paul Street and CounterPunch know this. But Street has to protect himself from speaking some politically incorrect truths about the U.S. and Russia by throwing in some anti-Putin propaganda and denigrating President Trump.

The truth that peace with Russia and China would undermine the justification of the $1,000 billion military/security budget, and that the military/security complex is the American government, is too harsh for most writers to state.

Truth is the most rare element in the Western world, and we will not be permitted to have much of it much longer. Increasingly, truth is difficult to find. Soak it up while it is still available.

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




Trump Should Appoint Special Prosecutor for Leaks

When President Donald Trump returns to Washington from his Mideast trip, he should immediately appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Obama holdovers who have been leaking secret information to the press for the purpose of embarrassing and hamstringing his administration.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Who is the real threat to the national security? Is it President Trump, who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners? Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.

Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.

On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.

Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist. That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.

But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen is duty bound to protect?

The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing a felony by leaking that secret.

Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt Trump, sees themselves as the “Resistance”—like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.

“Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?” asked the headline on the editorial in The New York Times.

One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?

In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.

Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.

When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of “the Pentagon Papers” until we could review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated for failing to understand the First Amendment.

And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the Times won a Pulitzer.

Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer—for Watergate.

The indispensable source of its stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.

Felt, “Deep Throat,” was a serial felon. He could have spent 10 years in a federal penitentiary had his identity been revealed. But to protect him from being prosecuted and sent to prison, and to protect themselves from the public knowing their scoops were handed to them by a corrupt FBI agent, the Post kept Felt’s identity secret for 30 years. Yet, their motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Which brings us to the point.

The adversary press asserts in its actions a right to collude with and shelter disloyal and dishonorable officials who violate our laws by leaking secrets that they are sworn to protect.

Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them?

Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests.

The media get the stolen goods to damage Trump. Anti-Trump officials get their egos massaged, their agendas advanced, and their identities protected.

This is the corrupt bargain the Beltway press has on offer.

For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The “failing New York Times” has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning.

And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, “We haven’t had this much fun since Watergate.”

When Nixon was brought down, North Vietnam launched a spring offensive that overran the South, and led to concentration camps and mass executions of our allies, South Vietnamese boat people perishing by the thousands in the South China Sea, and a holocaust in Cambodia.

When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.

Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.

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?

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



New Movie Exposes Bilderberg

Daniel Estulin will premier his new film, “Bilderberg, the Movie,” this week in New Orleans. Mark Anderson sat down with him ahead of the screening to learn more about the new film and Estulin’s research on the shadowy group.

By Mark Anderson

NEW ORLEANS, La.—Noted Bilderberg author-researcher Daniel Estulin will soon be screening for the first time in North America his documentary, “Bilderberg, the Movie,” to bring the background and meaning of the Bilderberg group’s highly secretive annual meetings to the greater public.

The Bilderberg meetings consist of 140 (chiefly European and North American) central bankers, finance ministers, former and current legislators, former and current prime ministers, corporate titans, and media moguls and editors who attend but agree not to report on the proceedings. European royalty, NATO and other military brass, select think-tank fellows from the Brookings Institution and other noted institutes, and high-tech gurus like Google founder Eric Schmidt, who represent some of the “fresh blood” among Bilderberg’s aging old guard, are also usually present. They are held at only the most posh hotels and resorts, which are totally cut off from the public during the three days of meetings.

The last U.S.-based meeting was held back in 2012 in Chantilly, Va., meaning the group is overdue to return to North America.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Estulin spoke to AFP in advance of the May 24 showing of the 62-minute film at the Prytania Theater in New Orleans, La. He told this AFP writer about the considerable challenges and intrigue he encountered in making the movie.

Listen to the interview with Estulin by clicking below.

“I started working on this film in 2011-2012 when a . . . Spanish producer, who’s a great fan of my work, approached me about making a documentary,” Estulin explained. “We signed a deal. . . . [But] six months later he was ruined. If you believe in conspiracy or coincidence theories, three banks called in his loans at the same time. He basically went bankrupt.”

A year went by, and another group decided to make a Bilderberg film, with Estulin as co-producer. That film was essentially done by the late summer of 2015.

Liberty Stickers

“Then one day my co-producer comes to me and says that he sold his 50% stake in the film to Baker & Taylor—that’s a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group,” he added. “So I basically knew . . . that there would be no way to get the film out. It was sabotaged. . . . The Carlyles are the Bushes, the bin Ladens, the Bakers. . . .”

Estulin had to reshoot the film to make sure it was 100% his creation, going to 13 cities in 11 countries in the process and spending about $200,000 of his own money.

To give would-be viewers a taste of the movie’s content, Estulin said that two phases of world control—carried out via a Bilderberg-nurtured monopoly- capitalist approach, based on breakneck economic growth for its own sake—have failed. So, when Bilderberg meets this year, he understands the group will be struggling to redefine itself and in the process come up with a model for a third phase of economic-political control.

The main problem with the “Bilderberg outlook,” summarized Estulin, is that it’s based on economic speculation and seeks to overturn the nation-state itself. Instead, it seeks to rely on the formation of regional economic blocs created by merging individual countries into larger entities. It’s no accident that Bilderberg’s early meetings nurtured the creation of ever-larger economic-political blocs, leading to today’s shaky European Union of 28 formerly independent countries—shaky enough to prompt Brits into voting last June to exit the dictatorial superstate.

In contrast, noted Estulin, President Donald Trump’s approach is rooted in a  longstanding competing system that at least keeps countries more or less intact and focuses on tangible, commonsense goals like rebuilding infrastructure.

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




Bilderberg to Meet in Virginia This Year

The exclusive, elite Bilderberg Meeting location for 2017 has been announced, and Mark Anderson will be there, again this year, to ensure their gathering is slightly less secretive than these global powerbrokers would prefer.

By Mark Anderson

With a little help from the Virginia police in the Fairfax County Sully District, as well as the obscure Bilderberg media-relations outlet and its May 19 late-coming online announcement, it’s been confirmed that Bilderberg 2017 will take place in Virginia, June 1-4, at the Westfields Marriot in Chantilly.

The Bilderbergers are naturally attracted to that snooty, secluded hotel, since they’ve met there before—in 2002, 2008, and in 2012, the year that Jim Tucker, the late AFP Bilderberg hound, made his last appearance covering the shadowy group after chasing these sons of smokestack billionaires since the mid-1970s.

The annual Bilderberg gatherings are perhaps the most exclusive and obscure among all the meetings of economic ministers (G7, G20 etc.), the World Economic Forum, and other, more familiar global groupings.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Encircled by an armada of private armed guards and publicly financed police, the Bilderberg Meetings, as they’re formally called, are totally closed to the reporting press and public, with the entire five-star hotel or resort of choice sealed off. Even the Bilderberg “sibling” group, the younger but larger Trilateral Commission. co-founded by the late powerbroker David Rockefeller, doesn’t resort to sealing off an entire hotel for itself.

The Bilderberg Meetings are the perfect convergence of public and private interests for the basic purpose of secretly charting the world’s economic and political destiny, although many other groups, including the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) are represented in some manner at Bilderberg and do their part in “the network” as well.

Gideon Elite book cover

The Bilderberg gatherings consist of 140 chiefly European and North American central bankers, finance ministers, former and current legislators, former and current prime ministers, corporate titans, and media moguls and editors who attend but agree not to report on the proceedings, thereby putting the public trust last.

Other participants include European royalty, NATO and other military brass, select think-tank fellows from the Brookings Institution and other noted institutes, and high-tech gurus from Silicon Valley, among others.

Coming out of last year’s meeting in Dresden, Germany, the Bilderbergers are facing an altered world, what with the U.S. president being Donald Trump—whose early actions as president included pulling the U.S. out of the Bilderberg-favored Trans-Pacific Partnership. Britain also voted just after last year’s Bilderberg meeting to exit the European Union. Early Bilderbergers, beginning with their first meeting in Holland in 1954, helped build the EU through all its intermediate stages to the present.

This AFP writer, having covered six previous Bilderberg gatherings, will travel to Chantilly to further discern the status of Bilderberg, to see if general public awareness of the group is rising or needs improvement, and to see if public protests are as strong as ever against one of the world’s most infamous private conferences.

Bilderberg functions as a world-networking and planning forum for the purpose of off-the-grid private governance for the banking and general corporate classes, whose officers and other representatives are sealed in the same hotel as key government officials. Those officials are in a unique, carefully concealed position to cut special wide-ranging deals for select corporations, even while the Bilderbergers groom select attendees for future important positions in government and the private sector.

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




Mainstream Rag Demands Death for Those Who Question Big Pharma

The Boston Herald has called for the death penalty for those who would share health information that is counter to big pharma’s nostrums, parroted by mainstream media. But the history of measles in America, and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, should cause anyone to question the reassuring, dismissive pat on the head they get from most doctors when asking whether their baby really needs yet another jab.

By James Spounias

The vaccine hysteria rhetoric is heating up so much that the Boston Herald editorial board on May 10 wrote that “lying” to people about vaccines should be a “hanging offense.”

The Herald’s call to death was made in light of the widely reported story about the children of Somali refugees in Minnesota who experienced an “outbreak” of measles. Apparently, some Somali parents have opted their children out of the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine, enraging the establishment vaccine lobby.

The word outbreak connotes something massive, but, in real numbers, we’re talking about 46 children, 41 of whom are Somalian; none of these children are seriously ill, as of this writing.

The Herald’s full statement concluding the editorial reads: “These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

If the Herald took the effort to do even a minimal job of investigation, free of bias, they would issue an apology and investigate the many layers of vaccination, from theory to practice, instead of calling for lynching of those who question vaccine dogma. Of course, that won’t happen, and the fact that vaccine critics are educating the public in alternative media outlets is irritating the establishment to the extent that a noted media organ calls for death.

While this writer is solidly against mandatory vaccination of any kind, for reasons of personal liberty and science, one would think the push to vaccinate would actually have a profound basis, given the hyperbolic call for death.

Measles deaths were in severe decline for decades before the introduction of the measles vaccine in the U.S. in 1963 and even before the proliferation of penicillin in 1944. While a significant number of people died from measles in the 1800s, by the early 20th century, measles became manageable with knowledge of the importance of nutrition, not vaccination or pharmaceuticals.

In 1960, the official number of deaths from measles was recorded as 380 in the United States, in a population of 180,671,000 people. Compared to other causes of death, measles ranked extremely low. Even in 1963, deaths from asthma were 56 times higher than measles, from accidents were 935 times higher (motor vehicles 323 times higher), and heart disease 9,560 times higher, according to Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk in their book titled, Dissolving Illusions.

Why, then, did the establishment in 1963 foist the measles vaccine on the public when measles literally wiped itself out, without a vaccine, antibiotics or other wonder drug?

If you are conspiratorially minded, the question may answer itself: Rockefeller-inspired allopathic medicine claimed that measles needed to be “wiped out” entirely.

Wiping out a disease that is already virtually non-existent doesn’t make sense to anyone with common sense. The irony is that it was already well known among medical professionals that in most cases, measles was a benign disease from which most recovered and, as a result, actually received the benefit of immunity against a subsequent occurrence.

Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk wrote how important vitamin A is to preventing measles from overtaking the body and that this was known in the early 1900s: “It was known that certain vitamins had a significant impact on measles outcomes. Vitamin A stops the measles virus from rapidly multiplying inside cells by up-regulating the innate immune system in uninfected cells, which helps to prevent the virus from infecting new cells.”

It’s a fact that well-nourished children didn’t die or suffer damage from a case of the measles, and that use of cod liver oil in the 1930s resulted in helping those affected. Studies in the 1990s confirmed that by using vitamin A, measles deaths could be reduced up to 90% in developing countries where children often are severely malnourished.

Better nutrition made children in America and most of the advanced world healthier, because advances in transportation brought vitamin-rich fruits and vegetables to more people. Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk drove this point home by tracking the incidence of scurvy and measles, both of which plummeted due to better nutrition.

Liberty Stickers

The measles vaccine has a checkered history, from inception of its use in 1963 to today’s version, in spite of assurances of safety and efficacy from big pharma and its lapdog media. The first measles vaccine introduced in America in 1963, known as the KMV (killed measles virus), contained “ ‘killed’ virus (which) was an aluminum-precipitated vaccine produced from formaldehyde-inactivated monkey kidney cell cultures,” according to Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk.

The KMV was a disaster, causing pneumonia and encephalopathy (brain swelling) in some cases, which brought the establishment to recommend it be discontinued, as early as 1967.

Not learning from this mistake, big pharma thought it a good idea to use a live vaccine, instead, and recommend that all who had received the KMV get the new vaccine as well.

As Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk wrote, “Those who encountered wild measles or live vaccine measles, after having the killed vaccine, had a tendency to develop a more severe disease, atypical measles” because the immune system in those vaccinated wrongly programmed the immune system.

The modified live vaccine brought rashes to nearly half of those injected and fevers up to 106 degrees in up to 83% of those who received it. Don’t fear, though: The geniuses at big pharma injected a “measles-specific antibody,” which did keep excessive rash and fever under control, but brought about other health maladies in those who received it, including neurological problems. Ironically, atypical measles could appear up to 16 years after injection of the modified measles vaccine. The measles vaccine did cause neurological damage in some reported cases and, interestingly, did not contain mercury as an adjuvant—driving home the point that mercury, alone, should not be singled out as the “problem” with vaccines.

Many have heard the names of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Dr. William Thompson, in news reports. Dr. Wakefield has been wrongly attacked as a fraud when all he did was have published in the journal Lancet in 1998 a link between regressive autism and a gastro-intestinal malady named ilea nodular enterocolitis in children given the MMR vaccine. Dr. Wakefield’s paper was retracted by The General Medical Council 12 years later in what is best described as politics.

Dr. Thompson, a former Center for Disease Control (CDC) scientist, who invoked federal whistleblower protection in 2014, reported that the CDC committed fraud regarding the link between vaccines and autism. He wrote in a letter to the CDC: “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African-American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

Given the history of measles and vaccination in the United States, is it any wonder reasonable parents object to vaccination?

The Boston Herald and the medical establishment have failed abysmally when one considers the burden of proof is on them to show that injecting viruses with various chemical adjuvants into the bodies of children should not only be safe, but should also be warranted to prevent serious, life-threatening diseases.

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine.




WikiLeaker Revealed?

A private detective in Washington, D.C., investigating the unsolved murder last year of DNC staffer Seth Rich, claims to know who leaked Democrats’ emails—and it is not Russia …

By John Friend

New evidence and public testimony is being offered to further substantiate claims that Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer who was mysteriously murdered in Washington, D.C. late last year, provided damaging information to WikiLeaks—not Russia—in an effort to expose corruption in the Democratic Party during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The WikiLeaks dumps, released late last year during the heated 2016 election, revealed high-level corruption in the DNC designed to sabotage then-Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Following the information released by WikiLeaks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign as chairwoman of the DNC, and Mrs. Clinton’s reputation was sullied even further. Clinton supporters, many mainstream media outlets, and virtually all federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have baselessly alleged Russian agents working at the behest of Russian President Vladimir Putin were responsible for hacking the DNC and transferring the damaging information to WikiLeaks in an attempt to undermine American democracy and ensure Donald Trump’s presidential victory. Russia has denied these allegations, as has WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and no legitimate evidence has been presented by any federal agency or media outlet to demonstrate the theory Russia was the source of the WikiLeaks dumps.

Now, Rod Wheeler, a retired D.C.-based homicide detective and Fox News contributor, who has been contracted by the Rich family to investigate their son’s mysterious death, has alleged that Rich may be the source of the WikiLeaks dumps.

Gideon Elite book cover

“My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” Wheeler recently declared in an interview with Fox News. “I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sit on his computer on a shelf at the D.C. police or FBI headquarters.”

Thus far, D.C. police have virtually no leads into Rich’s death and have offered little information about his murder. D.C. police have offered a $25,000 reward for information about Rich’s death, and WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward.

An anonymous federal investigator who has been in contact with both Wheeler and Fox News has also backed up Wheeler’s allegations. The federal investigator has claimed that an FBI forensic report on Rich’s computer, which was conducted shortly after his death, reveal that Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, who is now also dead. MacFadyen was a director at WikiLeaks and is a long-time reporter and documentary filmmaker.

“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal official told Fox News. He believes the emails are in the FBI’s possession, but have not been publicly released for political reasons.

According to the federal investigator, “44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from January 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen,” Fox News reported. The damaging WikiLeaks dumps were published on July 22 of last year, a mere 12 days after Rich was murdered.

Rich’s family has downplayed the recent allegations by both Wheeler and the anonymous federal investigator, describing Wheeler’s claims that Rich was WikiLeaks’ source as “unsubstantiated.”

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.




The Exponential Growth of Insecurity

When it comes to cyberspace, Dr. Roberts says, “There is no such thing as cybersecurity.” He asks a question the mainstream media has (yet again) failed to ask about the malware (malicious software) stolen from the National Security Agency by hackers and deployed to unsuspecting computer users worldwide recently. Who did the NSA intend to use this powerful cyberweapon against? 

By Paul Craig Roberts

There is no such thing as cybersecurity. The only choice is more security or less security, as the recent hack of National Security Agency (NSA) malicious software demonstrates.

Hackers stole from NSA a cyberweapon, which has been used in attacks at the time of this writing on 150 countries, shutting down elements of the British National Health Service, the Spanish telecommunications company Telefonica, automakers Renault and Nissan, Russia’s Interior Ministry, Federal Express, the energy company PetroChina, and many more.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The news spin is to not blame NSA for its carelessness, but to blame Microsoft users for not updating their systems with a patch issued two months ago. But the important questions have not been asked: What was the NSA doing with such malware, and why did NSA not inform Microsoft of the malware?

Clearly, NSA intended to use the cyberweapon against some country or countries. Why else have it and keep it a secret from Microsoft?

Was it to be used to shut down Russian and Chinese systems prior to launching a nuclear first strike against the countries? Congress should be asking this question, as it is certain that the Russian and Chinese governments are. As I previously reported, the Russian High Command has already concluded that Washington is preparing a nuclear first strike against Russia, and so has China.

It is extremely dangerous that two nuclear powers have this expectation. This danger has received no attention from Washington and its NATO vassals.

Gideon Elite book cover

Microsoft president Brad Smith likened the theft of the NSA’s cyberweapon to “the U.S. military having some of its tomahawk missiles stolen.” In other words, with cyberweapons, as with nuclear weapons and short warning times, things can go wrong in a big way.

What if the hackers had successfully attacked the Russian Ministry of Defense or radar warning systems? Would the Russian high command have concluded that the cyberattack was Washington’s prelude to incoming ICBMs?

The fact that no one in Washington or any Western government has stepped forward to reassure the Russian government and demand the removal of the U.S. missile bases surrounding Russia indicates a level of hubris or denial that is beyond comprehension.

On May 12, I wrote in an article on my website: “The costs of the digital revolution exceed its benefits by many times. The digital revolution rivals nuclear weapons as the most catastrophic technology of our time.”

Paper files are far more secure. Malware cannot be introduced into them. To steal a person’s information required knowing the location of the information, breaking into the building, searching file cabinets for the information, and copying the information. To intercept a voice communication required a warrant to wiretap a specific telephone line.

People born into a world where the ease of communication comes at the price of the loss of autonomy never experience privacy. They are unaware that a foundation of liberty has been lost.

In our era of controlled print and TV media, the digital revolution serves for now as a check on the ruling elite’s ability to control explanations. However, the same technology that currently permits alternative explanations can be used to prevent them. Indeed, efforts to discredit and to limit non-approved explanations are already underway.

The enemies of truth have a powerful weapon in the digital revolution and can use it to herd humanity into a tyrannical dystopia. The digital revolution even has its own memory hole. Files stored electronically by older technology can no longer be accessed, as they exist in an outdated electronic format that cannot be opened by current systems in use.

Humans are proving to be the most stupid of the life forms. They create weapons that cannot be used without destroying themselves. They create robots and free-trade myths that take away their jobs. They create information technology that destroys their liberty.

Dystopias tend to be permanent. The generations born into them never know any different, and the control mechanisms are total.

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 the AmericanFreePress Bookstore.




War Over Nutrition, Healthy Fats Quietly Rages Behind the Scenes as Americans’ Health Continues to Decline

Information about what we should eat and drink to enhance our wellness is confusing. Seemingly every week we’re bombarded with a new directive as to what a healthy diet should or should not include. A new book finally puts the kibosh on faulty information we have long been told about the advantages of a low-fat diet. In fact, it turns out, our bodies need certain fats to maintain optimal health.

By Christopher J. Petherick

There’s a war going on inside this country. However, this one doesn’t involve militarized police kicking down doors and shooting innocent people or even the propaganda war that’s being waged to control your thoughts. This fight is over your health—more specifically, what you’re being told is good to eat in order to ensure optimal health.

It’s evident that regular Americans are losing this battle, because for too long they have followed the advice of the medical and dietary experts who have argued that eating fat-free foods is the only path to good health. Thankfully, though, new research is validating what many health advocates have been saying for years: Your body needs fat to function, and if you want to lose weight and live a long and healthy life, then eat more fat.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Sally Fallon Morell, the founder and president of the Weston A. Price Foundation and owner of PA Bowen farmstead in Brandywine, Md., has long said that human beings need to eat healthy fats to achieve peak health. Her new book, titled Nourishing Fats: Why We Need Animal Fats for Health and Happiness*, makes just this case, arguing cogently that fat-free margarines and certain vegetable oils are not just making people fat and unhealthy, they’re actually killing us.

Mrs Morrell also maintains her own “Nourishing Traditions” blog on health and nutrition.

The premise of the book is laid out right on the cover of the book: “Animal fats are not villains.”

Over the years, Americans have been inundated with bad advice on how to eat healthy that’s not just inconsistent, but schizophrenic. One day, it’s “Don’t eat any fats—they’re all bad for you.” The next day it’s, “Okay, you can eat some fats from fish and avocadoes.” Then, the next day, they tell us, “Well, eggs and meat aren’t that bad for you after all.”

Listen to AFP’s interview with Sally Fallon Morrell by clicking the link below.

Now, an editorial published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine by several leading cardiologists states: “It is time to shift the public health message in the prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease away from measuring serum lipids [cholesterol] and reducing dietary saturated fat. Coronary artery disease is a chronic inflammatory disease, and it can be reduced effectively by walking 22 minutes a day and eating real food.” The real food they’re referring to consists of full-fat milk and other once-maligned foods that your parents and grandparents ate.

It’s no wonder the average person is totally confused by this. It’s also no wonder obesity rates are through the roof.

Mrs. Morell’s farm is only a few miles up the road from this editor’s house. She sat down with me recently to discuss her book as well as her tireless work to educate Americans on healthy living.

Liberty Stickers

Her views are devastating to the medical and dietary establishment, arguing that animal fats are not just not bad for you—they actually are vital for the human body to function.

“Animal fats are essential for us,” Mrs. Morell told AFP. “One thing that the mainstream media and the establishment has never budged on is that saturated fats are the enemy. They’re bad. They’ll clog your arteries. And this is where we’ve gone wrong. Saturated fats are critical for our health, and, of course, we get saturated fats mostly from animal fats.”

Mrs. Morell told AFP, “What’s in the animal fats are nutrients we can’t get anywhere else—vitamins A, D, and K—that are absolutely critical for our health.” Her book contains nearly 30 pages of footnotes that cite scientific research studies and books proving that animal fats are healthy for the human body.

AFP is carrying Mrs. Morell’s book, Nourishing Fats, which also includes 35 pages of healthy recipes.

To put it simply, if you want to be healthy and live a long, happy life, give up the fad diets and the refined and processed foods and go back to eating real food. You’ll lose weight and feel better, and you’ll get to eat amazingly well, too.

Christopher J. Petherick is the editor-in-chief of American Free Press and has a small farm in historic Southern Maryland.

*Nourishing Fats: Why We Need Animal Fats for Health and Happiness (softcover, 272 pages) is available from AFP’s Bookstore for $25. Call AFP toll free at 1-888-699-6397 to charge or send payment with form on page 16 to AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Ave., Ste. 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20613. See more books and videos online at the AFP Bookstore.




Comey & The Saturday Night Massacre

Cries of “worse than Watergate” went out from the mainstream media immediately after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last week. But is it worse? For that matter, is it even comparable?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, said Marx. On publication day of my memoir of Richard Nixon’s White House, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. Instantly, the media cried “Nixonian,” comparing it to the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. Yet, the differences are stark.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Bill Ruckelshaus and the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox came in the middle of an East-West crisis.

On Oct. 6, 1973, the high holy day of Yom Kippur, in a surprise attack, Egyptian troops crossed the Suez Canal and breached Israel’s Bar Lev Line. Syria attacked on the Golan Heights.

Within days, 1,000 Israeli soldiers were dead, hundreds of tanks destroyed, dozens of planes downed by Soviet surface-to-air missiles. As Egypt’s army broke through in the Sinai, there came reports that Moshe Dayan was arming Israeli F-4s with nuclear weapons.

“This is the end of the Third Temple,” Dayan was quoted.

Nixon ordered every U.S. transport that could fly to deliver tanks and planes to Israel. Gen. Ariel Sharon crossed the Canal to the west and rolled north to cut off and kill the Egyptian 3rd army in Sinai.

The Gulf Arabs declared an oil embargo of the United States.

We got reports that nuclear-capable Russian ships were moving through the Dardanelles and Soviet airborne divisions were moving to airfields. U.S. nuclear forces were put on heightened alert.

On Oct. 10, another blow had befallen Nixon’s White House. Vice President Agnew pleaded nolo contendere to tax evasion and resigned.

Nixon immediately named Gerald Ford to replace him.

It was in this environment, with Henry Kissinger in Moscow trying to negotiate a ceasefire in the Mideast, that Cox refused to accept a compromise deal that would give him verified summaries of Nixon’s tapes, but not actual tapes. Democrat Senators Sam Ervin and John Stennis had accepted this compromise, as had Richardson, or so we believed.

Nixon had no choice. As he told me, he could not, in this Cold War crisis, have Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev see him back down in the face of defiance by one of his own Cabinet appointees.

If he had to, Nixon told me, he would reach down to a GS-7 at Justice to fire Cox: “We can’t have that viper sleeping in the bed with us.”

That Saturday night, I told friends, next week will bring resolutions of impeachment in the House. And so it did.

NWO in Action cover

How do Nixon and Trump’s actions differ?

Where Nixon decapitated his Justice Department and shut down the special prosecutor’s office, Trump simply fired an FBI director who agreed that Trump had every right to do so.

By October 1973, with two dozen Nixon White House, Cabinet and campaign officers convicted or facing indictment and trial, we were steeped in the worst political scandal in U.S. history.

Nothing comparable exists today.

But if President Trump is enraged, he has every right to be.

Since July, the FBI has been investigating alleged Trump campaign collusion with Putin’s Russia to hack the DNC and John Podesta’s email accounts—and produced zilch. As of January, ex-CIA Director Mike Morell and ex-DNI James Clapper said no collusion had been found.

Yet every day we hear Democrats and the media bray about a Putin-Trump connection and Russian “control” of the president.

In the early 1950s, they had a term for this. It was called McCarthyism, and its greatest practitioners invariably turned out to be those who had invented the term.

“Justice delayed is justice denied!” applies to presidents, too.

Trump has been under a cloud of a “Russian connection” to him and his campaign for nearly a year. Yet no hard evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in the election has been produced.

Is not the endless airing of unproven allegations inherently un-American?

In 1973, NBC’s John Chancellor suggested the ouster of Richardson, Ruckelshaus, and Cox was the “most serious constitutional crisis” in U.S. history, passing over the secession of 11 Southern states and a Civil War that cost 620,000 lives. One London reporter said that “the whiff of the Gestapo was in the clear October air.”

We see a similar hysteria rising today.

Yet that was not a constitutional crisis then, and the mandated early retirement of Jim Comey is not a constitutional crisis now.

And that the mainstream media are equating “Russia-gate” and Watergate tells you what is afoot.

Trump is hated by this city, which gave him 4% of its votes, as much as Nixon was. And the deep-state determination to bring him down is as great as it was with Nixon.

By 1968, the liberal establishment had lost the mandate it had held since 1933, but not lost its ability to wound and kill presidents.

Though Nixon won 49 states, that establishment took him down. Though Ronald Reagan won 49 states, that establishment almost took him down in the Iran-Contra affair.

And that is the end they have in mind for President Trump.

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? His new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever, is available in AFP’s bookstore.




Maker of Shingles Vaccine Faces Lawsuits

A legal action against pharmaceutical giant Merck is shedding more light on vaccination dangers. Among the side effects listed in the warnings on packaging of Zostavax, a vaccination advertised to prevent shingles, are necrotizing retinitis, a severe eye disorder, and shingles. 

By James Spounias

A group of lawsuits that allege pharmaceutical giant Merck’s Zostavax—a vaccine that is purported to prevent herpes zoster (shingles)—caused damage is shedding light on the possible dangers of this highly advertised medical treatment.

In 2015, sales of Zostavax topped $749 million.

Trial lawyer Marc Bern reports he is gathering “thousands of complaints” yet to be filed in Philadelphia. Bern told pharmaceutical news website “FiercePharma,” “I think Merck has failed terribly . . . to warn about the very serious side effects and the failure of the vaccine to do what they claim it does.”

Bern filed what is believed to be the first lawsuit against Merck. Plaintiff Jorja Bentley, from Nevada, claims that Merck failed to warn of the risk of viral infection and that she suffered a headache, dizziness, and blurred vision shortly after receiving the vaccine. She stated that she continues to suffer from injury to her right eye, elevated blood pressure, headaches, and dizziness.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Bern stated: “We’ve been looking at this potential case for some time, and we believe it is highly meritorious. We believe the vaccine is at best 50% effective. Either it is not effective, or it has caused shingles and other issues, like in this case, where it has caused a serious [eye] complication.”

The fact that Zostavax may be implicated in eye-damage claims became better known when Merck got permission from the FDA in 2016 to include a warning that reads, “Eye Disorders: necrotizing retinitis (patients on immunosuppressive therapy).”

Tellingly, another side effect of the shingles vaccine is shingles. According to an Aug. 28, 2014 approval letter, the FDA granted Merck’s request “to include ‘infections and infestations: Herpes zoster (vaccine strain)’ and to update the patient package insert to include ‘shingles’ in the ‘What are the possible side effects of Zostavax?’ section.” In 2011, “gastro-intestinal disorders: nausea” was added as well.

Liberty Stickers

Most claims against vaccine makers never make it to court because the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 created a compensation program for vaccine injuries, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), run through the Department of Health and Human Services.

Many, but not all, vaccines are registered with the VICP, and because Zostavax is not registered, individuals are allowed to pursue litigation against Merck.

The VICP reviews vaccine injury claims, which are not limited to childhood vaccines. Roughly $3 billion has been awarded to victims since its creation in the 1980s, even though nearly two out of three claims are denied compensation.

Vaccine skeptics have plenty to say about the shingles vaccine.

Anne Dachel, media editor for “AgeOfAutism.com,” which is a website devoted to assisting those who believe that autism is an environmentally induced illness, interviewed Dr. Kenneth Stoller, an integrative physician who practices in San Francisco. Dr. Stoller is the author of Incurable Me, a book that exposes some of the darkest secrets of the medical industry.

Stoller told Ms. Dachel that there is “zero credible safety data” on vaccines.

“Vaccines are not tested for safety against a saline placebo,” he said. “They are tested against a solution that contains all of the adjuvants, metals, DNA, and other toxins etc., but just minus the infectious disease itself—in this case the varicella virus. So the safety data and adverse event data Merck cites in their package does not have a lot of meaning.”

How our immune systems respond to viruses cannot be reduced to the simplistic idea that a vaccine will protect us against a virus, and that those who are unvaccinated pose a risk to those who may be immune compromised. Introducing live or dead viruses into our system, by injection or orally, with or without “dangerous adjuvants,” is not the answer to fighting disease, according to some medical professionals.

Ms. Dachel posted a statement by Robert Krakow, former prosecutor and co-author of “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” a 2011 article published in Pace Environmental Law Review.

Krakow, now in private practice, handles vaccine injury claims and gave this statement to Ms. Dachel: “Given the obvious risk of serious injury from the Zostavax vaccine, any person over 50 should proceed with caution regarding the commercially promoted recommendation to get this vaccine. While shingles can be serious in rare cases, my view is that efforts to maintain good health and a strong immune system will serve us better in preventing shingles than obtaining this vaccine, which has the undeniable risk of serious injury.

There are almost 5,000 reports of adverse events after Zostavax. The vaccine contains substances that can provoke autoimmunity. . . . As with many other vaccines, I am not convinced that the vaccine or its components have been properly tested. The promotion of Zostavax on television and other places is as irresponsible as it is inappropriate. The value of the vaccine is overstated, while the risk of adverse reactions is downplayed.”

Whether someone should get the shingles vaccine is a matter of personal choice. This writer and American Free Press do not give medical advice. We do believe it is our obligation, though, to provide information for readers to research further and consult with their medical professionals.

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine.




Operation Gotham Shield 2017

Are we and North Korea being set up for a false-flag attack on U.S. soil? History has shown any time multiple federal agencies, military commands and Federal Emergency Management Agency get together to conduct an exercise we should pay attention and beware.

By Ronald L. Ray

What do the Departments of Energy and Defense, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Northern Command (NORTHCOM) have in common with the offices of emergency management in the states of New York and New Jersey and the city of New York? Answer: Operation Gotham Shield 2017, a full-scale exercise (FSE) to test federal, state, and local abilities to respond to a nuclear explosion. The long-planned event took place from April 18 to May 5 and was the cause of widespread concern over a possible “false-flag” disaster to be initiated by the federal government or the “deep state.”

While Gotham Shield focused in and around New York City, it also included emergency management exercises in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. Some sources claimed it was only a “table-top” exercise, but “crisis actors” and private-sector medical personnel participated with all levels of government and military officials in the long-planned event, proving it was indeed a FSE.

For example, MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. saw dozens of area ambulances and a mobile emergency room from Hackensack University Medical Center assembled, as emergency response teams practiced nuclear decontamination and other skills. Other hospitals in the region likewise participated.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

While FEMA, under the Department of Homeland Security, apparently led Gotham Shield, a number of other military and civilian exercises and events strangely coincided with the drill. This unusual conjunction, which was seen before or concurrent with the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Sandy Hook school shooting, and other supposed terror events, rapidly raised concerns internationally, including, for once, in a few mainstream media outlets, including “The Drudge Report” and Britain’s Daily Mail.

This journalistic exposure caused consternation among various Gotham Shield participants—who then made their previously public announcements “disappear”—and may have kept the exercise from “going live,” in the sense of a real nuclear detonation. If so, this is good, since the program was premised on the detonation of a ten-kiloton improvised nuclear device, either in the west end of the New York-New Jersey Lincoln Tunnel, near Weehawken, N.J., or in the air above that location. In all, four nuclear bombs—apparently fictitious, although the official description strangely does not specify—figured in Gotham Shield’s program.

If a nuclear blast of that magnitude were really to occur at Weehawken, it was projected that more than 13,000 would die and 130,000 would be injured—numbers many experts consider too low, given the area’s high population density.

Gideon Elite book cover

New York radio and Internet Superstation 95 even obtained and published maps and charts showing the predicted range of damage and number of casualties from a nuclear explosion of the type just described. Because the station is within the impact range, its report authors were more than a bit unnerved.

Another exercise under the Gotham Shield umbrella involved America’s amateur (ham) radio operators and the U.S. Army MARS radio messaging system. It is believed that high shortwave radio frequency bands have the best possibility of maintaining communications following a nuclear detonation and the consequent electromagnetic pulse (EMP), although no one explained how the broadcasting equipment will be shielded from EMP damage.*

In the Sept. 10, 2012 edition of American Free Press, writer Dave Gahary addressed this issue in an interview with Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. Pry’s group was set up by Congress with a mandate to “provide technical, operational policy advice and legislative help to Congress” to get the nation protected against a catastrophic EMP.

And what about the simultaneous electrical blackouts in three major U.S. cities shortly before the main Gotham Shield events of April 24-26? They fell during the broader exercise date range, yet the lamestream media were almost uninterested in learning the cause. If not actual terror activities, were they part of Gotham Shield, and, if so, what does that say about the federal government’s willingness to create chaos and mayhem among its own people?

As of this writing, no actual nuclear event has occurred, and one may hope that Gotham Shield and the other exercises were just that. But given the current world situation and the federal government’s established history of false-flag terror operations to justify the growing police state at home and massive wars of aggression overseas, a real nuclear event easily could occur soon.

SC3, a major contractor for the military-industrial- intelligence complex, for example, continues to advertise for crisis actors for Washington, D.C. and for “surveillance actors” with secret security clearances for work in Newport News, Va.— right across the harbor from the world’s largest naval base and shipyard in Norfolk, Va.

Given President Donald Trump’s newfound friendship with the Zio-Trotskyite warmonger party and the rogue “deep state,” is a false-flag disaster planned for the near future in order to accomplish the New World Order’s goals of martial law in America, more war profits abroad, and an extensive depopulation event? Will it be used to justify war against North Korea? Syria? Russia or China? Will the American sheeple fly their flags and march lockstep to their own death and destruction?

Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of The Barnes Review. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence. Contact Ron by email at [email protected]

For more on how you can prepare for a possible EMP attack, order EMP Attacks and Solar Storms—Expanded Edition (softcover, 117 pages, $15 plus $4 S&H inside the U.S.) by Arthur Bradley, Ph.D. from the AFP Bookstore.