By Rex Adams – February 20, 2012

Christian minister and long time Constitutional activist Rick Tyler has made the decision to seek election in 2012 to the U.S. Senate in the state of Tennessee. Tyler, who was on the Florida ballot in 2010 as a U.S. Senatorial candidate, has made the difficult decision to opt for the Volunteer State rather than his native Florida in pursuit of his political aspirations. Though he was born in Miami, Florida in 1957 Tyler has maintained intermittent business, ministry, and residential presence in Tennessee for many years. He considers the state to be nearly equal to Florida regarding its importance in his life. Both his parents grew up in the Nashville area and later attended the University of Tennessee in Knoxville where his father earned a degree in electrical engineering in the years immediately following World War II.

Tyler believes that from a demographic standpoint, his chances of prevailing in a statewide election in Tennessee would be significantly more favorable than in Florida where the population includes much greater percentages of non-European minorities who tend to exhibit a natural aversion to the traditional values and nationalistic, limited government philosophy for which he ardently stands. Additionally, Tyler considers sitting first-term junior Senator Bob Corker to be vulnerable in the face of an effective insurgent candidacy such as what he hopes to engage in.

As the political season unfolds Tyler looks forward to continuing the arduous struggle to return America to the governing principles upon which she was founded. He is of the unshakeable belief that, as 2 Chronicles 7:14 states, God will heal the land that chooses humility, prayer, righteousness, repentance, and an unflagging commitment to truth. His iron clad conviction is that the responsibility to call for such action rests upon the shoulders of persons such as himself and is determined to do all that is within his power in pursuit of such lofty goals of true repentance, revival, and the restoration of a God fearing America.

By Rick Tyler – February 20, 2012

With the roller coaster political fortunes of Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich prominent in the news, there has been a corresponding uptick in exposure for the chief surrogate of the former House Speaker, a man who happens to have been named after me. (I was born in 1957 and he in 1965…thus his naming occurred after mine.)

Over the years Gingrich’s Rick Tyler has functioned as a spokesman, advocate, and arch defender of the former Georgia Congressman. He has been a frequent guest on T.V. and radio as a tireless and energetic proponent of the ongoing agenda and goals of his mentor and boss. Gingrich, of course, is anything but what he styles and presents himself as on the campaign trail. Instead of the traditional conservative defender of the Constitution that he claims to be, Gingrich is, in reality, a futurist proponent of a post-Constitutional America that will merge comfortably into the steadily evolving new world order. Rick Tyler, quite naturally, contends ultimately for the same long range vision as Gingrich, hollow rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Summer Shake Up

In June 2011, the Gingrich campaign made headlines when Rick Tyler and assorted other key operatives abruptly resigned en mass. The ostensible reason for their jumping ship was that Newt had elected to go on vacation when he should have been hard at work on the campaign trail. At the time, the exodus of Tyler and company seemed to cast a foreboding shadow on the former House Speaker’s prospects for success. Now, however, there appears to be an altogether different explanation of what prompted those strange events. Many seasoned observers have now conjectured that the departure of Rick Tyler from the formal campaign was designed to free him up for the crucial role of guiding the strategy and activities of the independent PAC (political action committee) that would raise and spend vast sums of money to advance the cause and fortunes of the Gingrich effort to secure the Republican nomination. A side benefit would also be derived from the perception of having risen from the ashes to become a top contender for the nomination.

In the final analysis, Rick Tyler and his boss Newt Gingrich are complete traitors to the Constitution as well as the foundational beliefs and convictions of our founding fathers. Conservative media personality Glen Beck is accurate in describing Gingrich as nothing more than a progressive. The same conclusion by logical extension must be reached regarding Rick Tyler. As the true Christian Constitutionist I hereby denounce Gingrich’s Rick Tyler as an imposter and would caution the reader to accept no counterfeit substitutes for the genuine article.

By Rex Adams – February 18, 2012

The recent caucus voting in Maine has forced the subject of vote fraud into the news. Specifically, the ongoing campaign to subvert the candidacy of Ron Paul is the issue at the core of this current story. The Texas congressman stands head and shoulders over all other political figures in our present era. He is the individual who supposedly can’t exist in an age when sell out, compromise, and corruption are utterly common place. Simply stated, Ron Paul both speaks and lives the truth. He is not plagued with double mindedness and refuses to rationalize the supposed necessity of violating the Constitution in the purported interest of supporting it. Of course, the remainder of the political world daily engages in such contradictory and truncated logic as they vehemently defend a broad range of unconstitutional government activity and intervention both domestically and throughout the world.

It has become quite obvious that the power structure recently tried to prevent a Ron Paul victory in Maine. Certain obvious actions were taken to, at the very least, prevent Ron Paul from enjoying an outright caucus victory. The overt disenfranchising of a significant number of voters was accomplished by postponing the vote in one county and “accidentally” omitting vote totals from other scattered localities. This, and other nefarious antics by those in positions of power and influence, have served thus far to steal the logical and deserved front runner status from Paul. The illicit tactics employed against Ron Paul include but are not limited to the following:

1. Always referring to him as the “Libertarian Texas congressman.” Such labeling is designed to repel and alienate a significant percentage of the electorate who are subject and susceptible to basic psychology and the accompanying aversion to all things unfamiliar.
2. Incessantly repeating the mantra that Ron Paul is “un-electable” and that he has no actual intentions of winning the nomination or becoming president. These audacious lies have been reiterated so many times as to have become an involuntary recitation by the hireling teleprompter reader or commentator ostensibly dispensing the news.
3. Ad hominem name calling in the form of referring to Paul and his supporters as kooks, looneys, conspiracy nuts, isolationists, wackos, etc. ad nauseum. Such name calling, of course, comes straight from the play book of the totalitarian, statist agenda.
4. The routine omission and censoring of all news favorable to Ron Paul and suggestive of his potential to emerge victorious in the Republican nominating process. This duplicity is at times subtle, but equally as often it assumes a flagrant and unmistakable form.
5. Although this final example is yet unproven by empirical evidence, statistical and observational analysis in the states leading up to Maine suggest that Ron Paul has been the victim of outright vote fraud in the form of sophisticated tampering with the technologically advanced mechanisms through which vote tabulation is achieved. This type of vote fraud has long been an intermittent phenomenon throughout America and has been well documented as long ago as 1992 in the book, Votescam: The Stealing of America by the Collier brothers.

Suffice it to say, any and all who are complicit in the ongoing effort to immorally and criminally sabotage and subvert Ron Raul’s political aspirations are representative of the worst and most egregious conduct in American politics. Such parties are in no way deserving of being considered true conservatives, Constitutionists, Christians, or patriotic, freedom loving Americans.

By Rex Adams – February 15, 2012

Presidential politics has become one of the most dominant spectacles in our contemporary culture. The spectacle is never ending and, though the plot is relatively consistent, the viewing public is treated to a continually evolving cast of characters who, collectively and to varying degrees, form an interesting and often entertaining brand of modern political theater.

The plot, of course, is relatively simple. Every four years a presidential election is held to determine who will either become or remain the so called “leader of the free world.” In reality, the president is more of a figurehead and a symbol than an actual architect of policy and maker of decisions that really matter. Shadowy, behind the scenes forces and personages who operate the levers of global financial control constitute the actual “power behind the throne.” The average American, unfortunately, doesn’t comprehend the aforestated reality and, instead, clings to the childish notion that the president is precisely as portrayed by the major media and institutions that are so dominant in our society. That same individual is not prepared or willing to engage in the considerable degree of independent thought and research that are required in order to understand the nuances and sophisticated machinations through which ongoing power is exercised by the unofficial governing oligarchy. (It is most notable and encouraging that a rapidly growing percentage of the body politic is beginning to awaken to the realities of which we are speaking. Though the percentage remains comparatively small, this increasing number of informed citizens constitutes a very real threat to the corrupt status quo.)

When a presidential election occurs one of the contenders is often the incumbent or sitting president. A two party monopoly has long prevailed in order to ensure that no “unapproved” aspirant to the presidency is able to be perceived as viable. Occasionally, such as in 1992, a supposed independent candidate such as Ross Perot will emerge on the scene as a seeming potential alternative to the status quo. (In reality, Mr. Perot was a mere stooge who was trotted out by that same shadowy power structure to harness the growing wave of discontent emanating from all quarters of the political world, and to ensure that no meaningful change or reform would occur.)

In the typical presidential election the incumbent will seek to defend the record of his first term while a gaggle of potential nominees vie to become the standard bearer of the opposing party. Such aspirants might embark meaningfully upon their quest as early as midway through the current four year term. In some cases a perennial candidate seemingly never breaks stride…continuing to build his organization of supporters and workers…especially in the early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

As the political primary season revs up, various of the contenders wind up dropping out due to either a lack of interest in their candidacy or, in some cases, the emergence of scandalous information concerning past questionable behavior. As the months unfold leading up to the November election, a consensus is gradually achieved as to who each opposing party will feature as their candidate and nominee. On occasion, the grand masters of political intrigue will allow for a protracted slugfest that will run all the way up to the party’s nominating convention. Traditional wisdom considers such an occurrence to be a debilitating development since it inevitably spawns ongoing infighting and animosity within the overall party structure at a time when everyone, in theory, should be closing ranks against the “real enemy” who is, of course, the candidate being offered up by the opposing party.

In the final analysis it is always two establishment hacks pitted against each other in the general election. The stacked deck nature of the system and process guarantees that none who are genuinely qualified will be allowed to ascend to the perceived pinnacle of political power.

And now…to zero in on the actual focal point of this article…precisely who is in reality genuinely qualified to be president? Obviously, one must meet the Constitutional requirements for eligibility (which the sitting so-called president doesn’t). Beyond such considerations, however, a truly qualified candidate for the American presidency would need to possess the following attributes:

1.   To be in possession of a notable level of intelligence, wisdom, and common sense.
2.   To be free of the encumbrance of having sold out and prostituted himself to mammon.
3.   To fear God instead of man and to be willing to act and govern in accordance with the word and law of God as set forth in the holy scriptures.
4.   To possess a fluid working knowledge of the history, the machinations, and the ongoing agenda of those treasonous satanic conspiratorial forces that are tirelessly and relentlessly orchestrating America’s immersion and absorption in and by a rapidly evolving new world order global superstate.

Suffice it to say that, in modern times, we are yet to witness the emergence of such a qualified candidate.

Recently released movie on Tuskegee airmen should be labeled ‘fiction’

By Pat Shannan - American Free Press, Vol. XII, No. 8 – February 20, 2012

The new George Lucas film, Red Tails, about the Tuskegee airmen was released in January, and its many exaggerations of exploits by the group of black airmen has already exasperated at least one former airman who says the flick is pure fiction.

Author, editor and historian Robert H. “Punchy” Powell Jr. is a former WWII pilot with the 352nd Fighter Group. Powell knows his business and is self described as “dedicated to factual reporting about the air war in Europe and aviation in general.” Based in Belgium for more than two years, Powell flew 87 missions over Europe and piloted one of the fighter planes that protected the bombers over the Normandy beaches on D-Day.

Powell recently sat down in his Georgia home with this writer to set the record straight in hopes the world could separate the truth from the many ongoing myths.

Powell points out that the oldest myth is the 65- year-old false claim that the Tuskegeeans “never lost [to an enemy fighter] a bomber they were escorting.” Last year the Tuskegee airmen’s own historian, William E. Holten, announced that his research proved that this was not true. The facts show they lost some 25 bombers to enemy fighters.

Another claim that has been proved false, says Powell, is that the Tuskegee airmen flew more than 15,000 combat missions. The truth is their own official records indicate that the Tuskegee airmen flew only 311 missions.

Their so-called 15,000 “missions” were actually 15,000 “sorties,” and Powell goes on to explain the difference. A combat mission is an assigned flight to accomplish a military objective. This can be flown by one pilot or a squadron or group of pilots flying together and is recorded as one mission. Sorties are completely different. When 48 or 64 pilots fly together on a combat mission, it is recorded as 48 or 64 sorties. So by multiplying the 311 actual missions by the members of the squadron, one can see how someone, by either ignorance or intentional fraud, arrived at the figure of “more than 15,000.”

To have flown that many missions during the time they were in combat would have required that the Tuskegee airmen fly about 25 missions a day—more than one every hour, around the clock with no sleep—for every day they were in combat. This feat would have been impossible due to periodic inclement weather and “the problem of keeping all of their aircraft flyable over that period of time,” says Powell.

Powell also takes issue with the recently published obituary of Lt. Col. Charles Dryden, wherein it touted the Tuskegee airmen fighter group as being “the most successful squadron in American history.” “Not so,” says Powell. It was only the most publicized in American history, thanks to a fully paid public relations staff in Washington, the only such office of its kind.

Powell has compiled some interesting statistics that are much at odds with those longtime claims of the Tuskegee airmen historians, including facts on all of the 16 fighter groups flying in the 8th Air Force over Western Europe. When these records are compared, the Tuskegee airmen rank at the bottom of the list, despite the fact that they had four squadrons, to only three for the 8th Air Force groups.

How convenient it is for these Tuskegee airmen revisionist historians that February also happens to be black history month.
___
Pat Shannan is a contributing editor of AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty, I Rode With Tupper and Everything They Ever Told Me Was a Lie. All are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS . Call 1-888-699-NEWS toll free to charge.

By Jim Traficant – American Free Press, Vol. XII, No. 8 – February 20, 2012

From the birth of our nation in 1776 to the year 1990, a period of 214 years, the penal system reached a volume of 1 million inmates. Ten years later, in the year 2000, the volume of inmates became 2 million. Today the United States has in excess of 2.3 million inmates. I should know—I was one of the people caught up in this “incarceration nation.”

Federal government researchers have concluded that at least 12 to 15 percent of these inmates are totally innocent. At 12 percent, the number of innocent people in prison is at least 275,000. This is a very serious matter.

How did this happen? Well, we’ll have to ask some questions about what is taking place in our judicial system at the local, state and federal level.

There are many ways the judicial process can be corrupted.

During the arrest and trial period, did the arresting officer intimidate or threaten witnesses to give false testimony? Did he lie to the grand jury to get an indictment? Were criminal charges dropped against a witness for false testimony? Was a witness told by the prosecutor not to talk to defense investigators or defense lawyers?

Only 2.2 percent of defendants ever reach a true jury of their peers. The playing field is usually tilted to help the prosecution. Believe me, I know this first hand.

Then there is the judge: Did the judge have illegal communications with the prosecutor so that a defendant would be forced to plea bargain? Did he set up a plea bargain meeting for the prosecutor and demand the defense attorney be present? Did he attempt intimidation of the accused and his family? Did he withhold witness testimony from jurors? After the truth was revealed and after appeals were submitted, within the state or federal courts, was each appeal dismissed because the court did not address the issues presented, or were they simply dismissed through technicalities?

A good case in point is the prosecution of Benjamin D. Hudach in Trumbull County, Ohio. Hudach had been convicted of a murder that took place in 1995. But today, evidence proves Hudach was innocent. In his case the answers to the above questions were all “yes.”

No one, even if innocent, is safe in a totalitarian judicial system, a system that is criminal at all levels, a system that suborns perjury, intimidates, threatens and coerces witnesses and violates the civil rights of targets without any scrutiny or oversight.

The U.S. criminal justice system is a criminal system. Justice has nothing to do with it. I know because much of this happened to me, just like Hudach and at least another 275,000 others.

Please take a moment to contact Gov. John Kasich (R) of Ohio and tell him to free Hudach. Write Hon. John Kasich, Governor of Ohio, Riffe Center, 30th Floor, 77 South High Street, Columbus, OH 43215 or call 614-466-3555. Witnesses have finally admitted the truth. Hudach was sentenced to life. He’s now been in prison for over 16 years. Enough is enough. Get back at me.
___
James A. (Jim) Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He served as sheriff of Mahoning County and as a representative in the U.S. Congress. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002. Donations of support may be sent to Mrs. Tish Traficant, 429 Main Street, Poland, OH 44514.

By Michael Collins Piper – American Free Press, Vol. XII, No. 7 – February 13, 2012

As AFP predicted in the Feb. 6 edition, the call by the publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, for Israel’s Mossad to utilize its American-based assets to assassinate Barack Obama has been almost entirely suppressed by the mainstream media. In contrast, the story has been big news in Israel and widely reported in Jewish community newspapers all across America.

Most astonishing—in response to Adler’s provocation—is that there are many Jewish writers openly acknowledging there is a deep hatred for Obama within the Jewish community, which most Americans presume to be strongly supportive of the president.

A widely circulated analysis originating on Jan. 24 with the influential Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), admitted Adler’s remarks were “an extreme expression of a viewpoint that carries great currency among Obama’s Jewish critics: that the president represents a serious danger to Jews and to Israel,” adding that “while few of those critics might go as far as Adler, it doesn’t take much discussion in certain Jewish circles to find those who see something farmore sinister in Obama than a president whose policies are bad for the Jews and Israel.”

The JTA quoted Randy Silver, a Glenview, Ill. businessman, who asserted that he believes “Obama’s overriding goal is to have Israel destroyed. [Obama] put steps in motion to bring about the destruction of the state of Israel.”

A New Yorker told the JTA that “[Obama is] not a Hitler in the sense that he’s anti-Semitic and wants to put every Jew into a concentration camp—at least not as we see things right now.”

The JTA noted that “many longtime observers of the Jewish political scene” say the Jewish opposition to Obama reveals “an unprecedented level of vitriol.”

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, told the JTA: “I’ve never seen as much enmity toward a president by American Jews as I do toward Obama. . . . Among those who care about Israel, he surely is to blame for it. Every chance he gets, he blames Israel.”

And although there have been attempts to paint Adler’s Atlanta Jewish Times as being somehow without influence, one of Adler’s regular columnists is Chuck Berk, a leader of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who—as recently as Dec. 30—was pictured in the Times in the company of Israel’s consul general in Atlanta, along with the governor of Georgia and several state senators.

In the meantime, Scotty Reid—columnist for a black-oriented Internet site,  ThyBlackMan.com—raised important questions: “Are there Israeli assassination teams in the U.S.? If Israeli Mossad agents are based in the United States, what they are doing?”

Reid also noted that, “Adler is not just some crazed or mentally impaired individual publishing outlandish conspiracy theories.” Instead, Reid emphasized, Adler is not only publisher of a weekly newspaper but also producer of a local television show on which he has interviewed a number of Israeli government officials.

While the JTA suggested most Jews still claim to support Obama, the JTA did not mention that polls showing significant Jewish opposition to Obama could be enough to cause Obama to lose the electoral votes of key states, particularly in the Northeast, where politically active Jews in large numbers reside.
___
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth: Huey Long vs Wall Street, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and Confessions of an Anti-Semite. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202-547-5585 to inquire about pricing and S&H fees.

By Ray McGovern – American Free Press, Vol. XII, No. 7 – February 13, 2012

Has Iran decided to build a nuclear bomb? That would seem to be the central question in the current bellicose debate over whether the world should simply cripple Iran’s economy and inflict severe pain on its civilian population or launch a preemptive war to destroy its “nuclear capability,” while possibly also achieving “regime change.”

On this question a consensus seems to be emerging among the intelligence and military agencies of the United States—and Israel—that Iran has, in fact, not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. In recent days, that judgment has been expressed by high-profile figures in the defense establishments of the two countries—U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

However, this joint assessment that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear bomb apparently represented too big a change in the accepted narrative for the establishment to process.

On Jan. 18, the day before Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey arrived for talks in Israel, Barak gave an interview to Israeli army radio in which he addressed with candor how he assesses Iran’s nuclear program:

Question: “Is it Israel’s judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction”?

Barak: “Confusion stems from the fact that people ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now. . . in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case. . . .”

Question: “How long will it take from the moment Iran decides to turn it into effective weapons until it has nuclear warheads”?

Barak: “I don’t know. One has to estimate. . . . Some say a year, others say 18 months. It doesn’t really matter. To do that, Iran would have to announce it is leaving the [International
Atomic Energy Agency] inspection regime and stop responding to IAEA’s criticism etc. Why haven’t they [the Iranians] done that? Because they realize that . . . when it became clear to everyone that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, this would constitute definite proof that time is actually running out. This could generate either harsher sanctions or other action. . . . They do not want that.”

Question: “Has the U.S. asked or demanded that the [Israeli] government inform the Americans in advance, should it decide on military action”?

Barak: “I don’t want to get into that. We have not made a decision to opt for that; we have not [even] decided on a decision-making date. [It’s all] very far off.”

Question: “You said the whole thing is ‘very far off.’ Do you mean weeks, months, years”?

Barak: “I wouldn’t want to provide any estimates. [I]t’s certainly not urgent. I don’t want to relate to it as though tomorrow it will happen.”

Israel’s prime minister clearly confirms the consistent assessment of the U.S. intelligence community since late 2007 that Iran is not making a nuclear bomb.

A formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of November 2007—a consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies—contradicted the conventional wisdom that Iran’s nuclear development program is aimed at producing weapons. The NIE stated: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. . . . Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

The key judgments of that estimate elicited a vituperative reaction from some Israeli officials and in “neoconservative” circles in the United States. It also angered then-President George W. Bush, who joined the Israelis in expressing disagreement with the judgments. In January 2008, Bush flew to Israel to commiserate with Israeli officials who he said should have been “furious with the United States over the NIE.”

While Bush’s memoir, Decision Points, is replete with bizarre candor, nothing beats his admission that the NIE “tied my hands on the military side,” preventing him from ordering a preemptive war against Iran, an action favored by hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney.

For this writer personally it was heartening to discover that my former colleagues in the CIA’s analytical division had restored the old ethos of telling difficult truths to power, after the disgraceful years under CIA leaders like George Tenet and John McLaughlin when the CIA followed the politically safer route of telling the powerful what they wanted to hear.

It had been three decades since I chaired a couple of NIEs, but fate never gave me the chance to manage one that played such a key role in preventing an unnecessary and disastrous war as the November 2007 NIE did.

Following this, there emerged in Washington a new conventional wisdom that the NIE was wrong and wasn’t worth mentioning. Though the Obama administration has stood by it, The New York Times and other FCM outlets routinely would state that America and Israel agreed that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb, and then add the “wink, wink” denial by Iran.

However, on Jan. 8, Defense Secretary Panetta told Bob Schieffer on television talk show Face the Nation that, “[T]he responsible thing to do right now is to . . .make sure that they do not make the decision to [develop] a nuclear weapon.”

Panetta was making the implicit point that the Iranians had not made that decision, but just in case someone might miss his meaning, Panetta posed the rhetorical question: “Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

America’s so-called newspaper of record won’t even report accurately what Israel or the CIA think on this important issue, if that goes against the alarmist conventional wisdom that the neo-cons favor. Thus, we have this divergence between what the U.S. media is reporting as fact—that Israel and the U.S. believe Iran is building a bomb though Iran denies it—and the statements from Israeli and U.S. officials, that Iran has not decided to build a bomb.

While this might strike some as splitting hairs, since peaceful nuclear expertise can have potential military use, this hair is a very important one. If Iran is not working on building a nuclear bomb, then the threats of preemptive war are not only unjustified, they could be exactly the motivation for Iran to decide that it does need a nuclear bomb, to protect itself and its people.

__
During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, Ray McGovern prepared and briefed the President’s Daily Brief, and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

By Bill White – American Free Press, Vol. XII, No. 6 – February 6, 2012

Producers of television crime programs and publishers of major newspapers have admitted that they intentionally skew coverage to downplay minority criminal activity, part of a racist, anti-white overreaction to complaints by liberal groups that crime programs portray blacks and Latinos as criminal and out of control.

In a recent column by Ben Shapiro, a political columnist syndicated by Creators Syndicate, John Langley, producer of the television show “Cops,” admitted that he consciously inserts an anti-white bias into his programming:

“I show more white people than statistically what the truth is in terms of street crime,” Langley said. “If you look at the prisons it’s 60-something percent people of color, and 30-something percent of white people. If you look at ‘Cops,’ it’s 60 percent white and 40 percent [blacks and Hispanics] . . . it’s just the reverse. And I do that intentionally.”

Editors at mainstream publications have also conceded that they downplay the race of criminals, because they do not want the public to know that most criminals are black or Hispanic. Tom Kent, a deputy managing editor for the Associated Press, recently stated that the number of blacks who commit crimes “probably would not be germane to the story” in most of the news wire’s press coverage. Gerould Kern, senior vice president and editor of The Chicago Tribune has said, in defense of the same policies, that “we guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion because of the color of their skin,” and that his paper does so by altering the facts of the news when it doesn’t suit their political ends. Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander has said the same, telling readers that “The Post should always be sensitive to overplaying stories, especially if race is involved.”

Of course, the issue of not mentioning race becomes more serious when minority criminals are engaged in racist violence against white people—a relatively common situation that is broadly denied by the mainstream news. The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have all been accused of doing this in various reports.

By Michael Collins Piper - American Free Press, Vol. XII, No. 6 – February 6, 2012

At the height of a growing frenzy among American friends of Israel who demand the United States attack Iran, a leader of the Jewish community publicly called for Israel’s Mossad to assassinate President Barack Obama in order to save Israel from Iran.

On Jan. 13, Andrew Adler, editor and publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times—joining an ever-more-boisterous chorus of angry voices—wrote a column declaring Israel had three options (all violent) to ensure its security. The first option was to attack its enemies in Hezbollah and Hamas.  The second was to attack Iran. The third option: “Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

To ensure readers understood what he was saying, Adler underscored his call for Obama’s murder, writing: “Yes, you read [that] correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence.”

He added: “Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles? . . . You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.”

News of this open call by a Jewish leader for the president’s assassination did not receive any notice outside the Jewish community until after an independent Internet website discovered the story and publicized it. In fact, most major news outlets completely suppressed this important story.

Forced by public outrage to comment, other Jewish leaders asserted this was “just one man’s opinion” but the truth is that one man—known to be deeply religious and long active in Jewish affairs—was the publisher of an influential newspaper serving one of the wealthiest and most powerful communities in a pivotal metropolitan area.

Although Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and other Jewish lobby kingpins denounced the candid opinions expressed by one of their own, their outrage seemed to some observers to be more hinged on the fact that Adler’s honesty too openly exposed the point that there is deep anger toward Obama by those who perceive the president to be hostile to Israel.

As far back as its July/August 2009 issue, Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee, referred to Obama’s “turn against Israel”—just one notable example of this mindset.

Adler’s viewpoint reflects the attitude of many in the pro-Israel community, evidenced by heavy-handed attacks on the president appearing in Jewish community newspapers from the beginning of his presidency.

Chemi Shalev admitted in an essay in Israel’s Ha’aretz on Jan. 21 that Adler’s views do reflect the thinking of what Shalev referred to as “many.”

Commenting that “Adler’s crazy and criminal suggestions are not the ranting of some loony-tune individual and were not taken out of thin air,” Shalev said Adler’s anger was “the inevitable result of the inordinate volume of repugnant venom” spewed at Obama by “many who still believe he is a Muslim, who are convinced that he wants to destroy Israel and who seriously debate whether he is more like Ahmadinejad than Arafat or. . .more like Hitler than Haman.”

Some speculate the Adler affair was stage-managed from the start—a contrived provocation to stir up more discussion in the Jewish community of Obama’s intransigence toward Israel. Adler himself said he “wanted to get a reaction,” and he did: Jewish people across America are aware—now more than ever—that many of their leaders are hostile to Obama because of his policy toward Israel.

The Secret Service claims it is “investigating,” although few believe Adler will be prosecuted. In the meantime, Adler “resigned” as editor of his own newspaper and put it up for sale.

The call for Obama’s assassination does come at a time when pro-Israel voices are howling for Obama to wage war against Iran on Israel’s behalf.

On Jan. 18, The Wall Street Journal—controlled by hardline pro-Israel billionaire Rupert Murdoch—published a screaming pro-war commentary titled “The Mortal Threat from Iran.” The author—Mark Helprin—is an American conservative who holds membership in the influential Council on Foreign Relations and who is also a former member of both the Israeli infantry and the Israeli air force.

Helprin declared that “any president of the United States fit for the office . . . should order the armed forces of the United States to attack and destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex.”

Acknowledging Americans would suffer retaliatory attacks from Iran, Helprin concluded it would be worth the cost to put an end to such a “vengeful, martyrdom-obsessed state in the midst of a never-subsiding fury against the West.”

This hysterical bellicosity appearing in the otherwise staid Wall Street Journal is not out of the ordinary. It is found in much of the media as the pressure for war escalates.

The question remains: Will Obama be intimidated by the threats, or will he withstand the demands of the powerful minority who want war?

__
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He  has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is  the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty  Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth,  The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books  with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.