Press "Enter" to skip to content

American Third Party Report Interviews Bob Whitaker, American Freedom Party Presidential Nominee

From American Third Party Report

Bob Whitaker

In an American Third Party Report exclusive, Bob Whitaker, the 2016 presidential nominee of the American Freedom Party, answers questions about his background, political views, and presidential campaign.  Below is the transcript and audio of the interview.

  1. What is your history with electoral politics? Which political candidates have you previously supported or endorsed?

That is pretty involved because I have been in electoral politics since 1954 when I carried around a petition for Strom Thurmond for the Senate.  I was active—I was the first Young Republican chairman in Richland County, which is the biggest county in South Carolina.  I wrote speeches for Wallace.  I wrote a couple of books on politics, which made the review of reviews, which meant—which is pretty good for a political book.  One was called A Plague on Both Your Houses, the other was The New Right Papers.  I worked on Capitol Hill for a Midwest Republican.  I was a Reagan appointee in a low level.  I worked for the Voice of America, that’s not supposed to be political.  So I have been—and I was in—I ran an office in Chicago in 1968 for a friend of mine that was a Republican candidate—he got nominated, lost the election.  But I lived in the headquarters—in other words, I’ve been active all through the years.

  1. What are your views on Barack Obama? If you were president, what would you have done differently than him?

Somebody said about television that the medium is the message.  Obama is Black.  That’s all there is to him.  That’s 100%.  He’s never had a single idea or insight.  He is a Black man who talks the Black line like you expect a Black man to do.  That’s it.  There isn’t a hell of a lot to comment on.

  1. Last election cycle your party was named the American Third Position Party and nominated filmmaker Merlin Miller for president. Miller appeared on the ballot in 3 states and received a total of 2,702 votes including write-ins. What will you do to improve these numbers?

As far as the number of votes I will get—you asked me about the 2,500 I think that the previous incarnation of our party, AFP now, but that’s not—I’m running to get some freedom of speech.  A candidate cannot be blocked out as effectively.  For example, one thing that used to always be free was putting up signs.  But now every sign company in the United States has been notified that no sign that criticizes diversity and particularly uses my slogan “Diversity is White Genocide”—no sign maker is allowed to put one of those up.  I didn’t know anybody had that kind of power, but that—we put up a couple of those signs in the townships put pressure on the sign builder so we can’t have signs.  But, now we can because I’m a candidate.  We filled out the papers.  I’m a candidate in two states that I know of, which gives me First Amendment rights, almost like a citizen.  And we’re able to make calls, robocalls.  We haven’t tried to put a fence up—I mean a sign up yet.  We’ll be able to buy some radio time.  In other words, we’ll be able to breach the media.   And that’s the reason I’m running for office is to get my messages across.  And again, you have no First Amendment privileges today.  People just scream ‘racist.’  It used to be called a lynch mob, now it’s called political correction, but it’s the same principle.

  1. What do you ultimately hope to accomplish with this campaign?

What I plan to—hope to accomplish in this campaign, once again, is to break through the media block.  And as I say, we can’t even put up signs on the highway that disagree with diversity.  People know that the TV and all the other regular media are controlled by political correctors, but signs that’s a whole new bit—coast-to-coast, no signs that say anything negative about what they call diversity—and of course diversity means that there are too many White people and nothing to do with any other race.  Diversity is White genocide.

  1. Merlin Miller traveled to Iran during his campaign and met with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Do you have plans to meet with the new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani or any other world leaders?
  2. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said he would meet with any presidential candidate that travels to Israel. Do you have any interest in meeting with him?

Your questions about the Middle East and visiting there and so forth, I have no interest whatsoever in the Middle East.  It is very important to note that the actual Constitution says that America exists for only one purpose—you want to read the Constitution—read what it says at the very beginning: “To secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.”  That was in 1787 that ‘our.’  So it’s hardly a nation of immigrants that was made up later by immigrants I think.  As far as the Middle East is concerned, I think if your heart is into Israel, your ass should be in Israel.

  1. What are your thoughts on the Iran nuclear deal?

My thoughts on whatever nuclear deal the latest one was with Iran are simply that we set the rules.  We thought the Soviet Union had atomic weapons and therefore was inviolable.  We took no action against the Soviet Union or Communism, whereas we have destroyed Nazism.  And our excuse was that they had nuclear weapons; we’d destroy each other.  So naturally, Iran and these other countries feel that once they get nuclear weapons—that’s what we said—once you get nuclear weapons you can do whatever you please.  We set those rules.  I remember all the anti-nuclear stuff and all that, and now that it’s over, it’s easy for—but it was basic—most people used it as an excuse to talk about we shouldn’t have anything against Communism.  Well, now it’s Islam and North Korea.  But the same rules apply.  You can’t really control those weapons once you have set up a rule that a nuclear power is inviolable.  We set that rule to bolster the Soviet Union.

  1. Should Muslims be banned from immigrating to the U.S.? Why or why not?

Moslems banned from the United States that would be almost impossible to implement.  How do you know if someone’s a Muslim?  But I don’t believe in immigration.  Period.  Except, constitutionally, we are—we will allow immigrants to come if they are useful to ourselves and our, o-u-r, posterity.  That’s the only reason immigrants should be here.  If you’re a Jew who is loyal to Israel, I don’t want you here.  If you’re loyal to anything else, I don’t want you here.  The United States is for ourselves and our posterity.  That is the only reason we should have any immigrants whatsoever.

  1. How do you feel about the presidential campaign of Donald Trump?

My feelings about Donald Trump, the party supports him, I mean, they don’t really—I don’t think the FP really supports me one way or the other.  But I am able as—we’ve had about 300,000, I think, robocalls.  We’ve gotten the message out that diversity is White Genocide.  That’s what I was addressed to do.  I think that Trump will do what every Republican always does.  He’ll talk big right now about the United States, protecting our borders and all that stuff.  Then, like all conservatives, he will get down on his knees and begin to weep about White Guilt and about how he loves everybody and the usual stuff you see Republicans grovel, like old southerners, you know, they’re all just so good at groveling.  And I think he’ll end up doing that.  If he doesn’t, that would—like I say these days, anybody who runs for a Republican nomination, I assume that he’s a groveler, and he gives the other side, the anti-Whites, anything they want.

  1. The American Freedom Party platform says the party supports “freedom of choice in all matters concerning health and medical treatments.” Does this include abortion rights?

Not answered

  1. The platform also says “Campaign finance laws must be fair toward all political parties instead of favoring the Democrat and Republican monopoly.” What changes should be made to current campaign finance laws?

Not answered

  1. When the platform argues “The news media has an obligation in a free society to cover all candidates and parties,” does this mean that that obligation should be enforced by law?

To address the point about regulating the news media, at the time that the First Amendment was passed, there were no anti-trust laws.  At that time, small industries—small factories, if they could even be called that—the idea of the government taking action against local merchants—against people setting new prices—was unconsidered.  It would have been sure tyranny.  But industry grew to the point where several men could sit down at a table and say what the price of steel would be.  So the government stepped in.  That was in the 1880s to the early 1900s.  But today, and particularly, before the NAD, a group of men would sit down and decide what the party line would be; what political correctness would be.  And these giant news organizations had a lock on alternate real communications: NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS, which was sort of a turnout to the other ones in political correctness.  My point is time has changed, but the law has not changed with it.  The net is doing something about this, but all these years we had unregulated trusts deciding what our opinion should be.

  1. What can be done to curb the intolerance on college campuses that restricts freedom of speech?

I can cover your question about the universities.  Like I say, they’re essentially run by lynch parties who are called political correctors, but it’s the same old game.  They scream ‘racist’ and all the conservatives fall down on their knees and sob.  It’s just a mob that’s what I told when I was interviewed by CNN.  That’s one reason they didn’t want to carry the thing.  I just kept saying, you act like a mob, you just scream ‘racist’ and then no way anyone can deal with a mob, except with another mob, which seems, looks, we’re going to get back like Germany was where you had the Communists on the streets and you had the Brown Shirts on the streets, because that was the only way anybody could ever say anything was with their fists like a modern university.  What I would do about the university is prosecute people who use public—who use tax—501(c)(3) organizations—tax deductible—not tax exempt, like universities. You are subject to legal action when you use public funds to promote political causes and I think we should jam—that is already the law.  And I think we should jam it.  We should pull about a five billion dollars out of the Harvard funds and the Yale funds and all that violated the law on . . .

  1. As president, how will you deal with the threat of climate change?

As far as climate change is concerned, I know many instances where the universities have faked anything.  I said in one book I wrote that if political correctness or Marxism needed for frogs to have hooves, there would be 10,000 professors lined up to testify that horses—that frogs have hooves.  And they have caught them cheating on this weather business on any issue you care to talk about.  I mean openly cheating.  This Emory professor who was fired because he made up his facts on guns in American history and he laughs at the idea he was disgraced.  He says he’s getting along much better now, now that he has all these foundations to give him money.  So climate change I’d have to look at some statistics.  We have to prosecute some people who are using public—again, it’s illegal, it’s not just to be stopped—it’s to be prosecuted when people use public institutions for—to push politics.

  1. Is there anything else you would like to add?

In 2010, you know, the nomination for the—a major party nomination for the United States Senate is a big deal.  In 2010, I was talking about tax-exempt organizations using public funds.  Now, if I’d do that, I’d go to prison.  No questions.  In 2010, the usual people who hand out the Black vote had agreed that the Democrats.  This prominent White guy was to be the Democratic nomination and all the Blacks would vote him.  But, all of a sudden everybody sort of looked the other way because this guy was dominating Black working man, and nobody discussed why, although everybody knows why.  The lists—Blacks are given lists at Church among other places, of who to vote for in the primary and in the election.  In other words, they don’t really vote, most Blacks.  Their vote is traded exactly the same way they were before the Civil War.  The group of largely Black people bargain for what they’re after and the Black vote goes all one way.  In fact, one of the funniest examples of this was in 1966, when back then getting the Black vote could hurt you statewide, so Fritz Hollings made a little agreement that these—well there was something called Ward 9 in Columbia and Ward 9 in Charleston, they were the Black Wards, and that’s the one the news media used—so all the Blacks in Ward 9 in Charleston and in Columbia voted solidly against Hollings so he could—so people would think that he didn’t get the Black vote.  Whereas he had paid the price, got the vote, and the rest of the state outside the two district nines, the little thing was handed out put his name on it.  Now if that is voting, as in voting rights, then the Soviet Union was a democracy.  Churches are under the same law.  They’re tax deductible and it is a crime for them to hand out voting lists.


  1. langa langa December 24, 2015

    Merlin Miller was a lot more subtle. This guy is about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head.

  2. Jed Ziggler Jed Ziggler December 23, 2015

    He says they’re already on the ballot in two states. I know Mississippi is one, what’s the other one?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

19 − 3 =