How to Stop the Flood of Foreign Refugees

• If you don’t want a scourge of migrants, don’t let your government’s foreign policy create the problem.

By Shane Smith —

The great refugee scourge has been in the headlines for months. No one knows what to do with the millions pouring out of Syria, Libya, and their destabilized neighbors. Europe initially opened its borders wide, offering asylum, until the tide became a tsunami (over 1 million by December 2015) and terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels changed many minds.

Here in the United States, Republican presidential contender Donald Trump has rocketed to the top of the polls for, among many other things, his stance on immigration. Both Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz call for a moratorium on Muslims entering the country and fantasize about building an anti-Muslim police state, as if round-the-clock suspicion, harassment, and surveillance of an ethnic group wouldn’t incite someone to violence.

One question that gets almost no attention, however, is why there are so many refugees in the first place. Why are these millions suddenly deciding to leave their country and head to Europe? Why is Syria “emptying”? Why does Libya no longer resemble a country? Why is Iraq being torn apart by wave after wave of violence? And probably most importantly, why are people from these countries so enraged at the West that they’re willing to strap bombs to themselves and kill as many civilians as possible?

The answer is inconvenient because it points to a solution that can’t be achieved through airstrikes, the arming of “rebels,” or “boots on the ground.” The answer would have grave implications for the future of U.S. foreign policy because it would lay blame for much of what has occurred at the feet of those hatching U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

The answer is that 13 years of U.S.-led foreign intervention in Iraq, Libya, and the rest of the Middle East has fatally ruptured the social order of these societies, throwing them into chaos. No one can live there peacefully, so they leave.

Iraq was the first domino to fall. It is now a smoldering ruin, and ISIS, along with every other violent gang, runs wild there, scooping up American-made military gear as American-trained Iraqi troops scatter into the night.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The watchdog group Internal Displaced Monitoring Center has some hard figures on just how many Iraqis had to leave their home permanently due to the destruction of their civilization: 3.3 million as of December 2015.

The destruction of Libya was instigated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who goaded President Barack Obama into striking Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi, insisting he was on the verge of committing genocide. Well, a genocide of sorts did happen—a genocide of national identity, order, and stability by the U.S.

Now Libya is a failed state, something along the lines of a nightmare.

The responsibility and the blame lie with Mrs. Clinton and others, who pushed for an attack without thinking of the consequences a year or two down the road.

Libya’s current condition should be Mrs. Clinton’s big scandal, not her email server.


Syria is also at a boiling point, and the civilians who’ve escaped death have left the country. More than 4.5 million Syrian refugees have fled into neighboring countries, according to Amnesty International.

Syria has been described as a “mini world war” due to the sheer number of nations fighting there, either directly or by proxy. And just as expected, the U.S. is right in the middle of it, attempting to topple Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s Russian-backed leader.

The U.S. has been doling out weapons and war gear to various “rebel” factions to give them the firepower necessary to take down Assad, but all the made-in-America war goodies end up in the hands of ISIS. It’s not hard to see how easily this strategy could all go to pot and how outlandish it is to think that bombing, invading, and arming terrorists would result in anything other than a continent-wide dumpster fire.

It might be nice to hear some strongman presidential candidate ramble on about how he’ll seal up the borders and not let terrorists in, but if he doesn’t point out the cause of the refugee flood and the terrorist attacks then none of his rhetoric will matter.

Trump, who could be our next president, is already itching to use the American war machine to create another Middle Eastern mess that will result in more refugees and more recruits to anti-American terrorist organizations.

If you don’t want a flood of refugees piling up at the border, don’t let your government create it.

When the president comes on the television speaking of the necessity of this or that Middle Eastern war, don’t buy it. It will turn out exactly the way the other wars of the last decade have turned out. It will create more terrorists, millions more refugees who’ll be making a beeline for your borders, and taxpayers, both present and future, will as usual be forced to pick up the tab.

Donate to us

Shane Smith is a freelance writer with an economics background, who lives in Norman, Oklahoma. This article originally appeared on the website Red Dirt Report.

Frankinsects on the Loose

• Genetically modified mosquitoes being developed to battle spread of disease.

By James Spounias —

Genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes have been touted as a benign solution to combat the spread of the Zika virus, but how much does the public know about the use of GM insects, let alone clandestine experiments that used mosquitoes as biological weaponry?

If you listen to the antiseptic public relations efforts by the medical-industrial complex, only the scientifically illiterate oppose GM mosquitoes.

What the proponents and even most opponents of GM technology aren’t telling you is that manipulated mosquitoes have a long and secret history, predating genetic tinkering.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

AMERICAN FREE PRESS has already documented gaping holes in the “government/industry” theory of Zika and its potential threat to America.

It should come as no surprise that the United States Army and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) biological warfare program used mosquitoes as weapons on unsuspecting Americans and others.

Authors H.P. Albarelli Jr. and Zoe Martel, in a 2010 article published on the “Truthout” website, revealed that as early as 1942 government-paid biochemists at Fort Detrick were “considering” dengue fever as a possible weapon, supposedly to weaken, not kill, potential enemies. “In the early 1950s, Fort Detrick, in partnership with the CIA, launched a multimillion-dollar research program under which dengue fever and several additional exotic diseases were studied for use in offensive biological warfare attacks,” they wrote.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that “Dengue is caused by any one of four related viruses transmitted by mosquitoes. There are not yet any vaccines to prevent infection with dengue virus, and the most effective protective measures are those that avoid mosquito bites. When infected, early recognition and prompt supportive treatment can substantially lower the risk of medical complications and death.”

The CDC estimates that 400 million people worldwide are exposed to dengue, and that symptoms are “high fever and at least two of the following: 1. Severe headache, 2. Severe eye pain (behind eyes), 3. Joint pain, 4. Muscle and/or bone pain, 5. Rash, 6. Mild bleeding manifestation (e.g., nose or gum bleed, petechiae, or easy bruising) or 7. Low white cell count.”

It didn’t take long for the U.S. government to foist dengue-infected mosquitoes on American citizens in secret experiments.

According to Albarelli and Martel, “Several CIA documents, as well as the findings of a 1975 congressional committee, reveal that three sites in Florida, Key West, Panama City, and Avon Park, as well as two other locations in central Florida, were used for experiments with mosquito-borne dengue fever and other biological substances.”

The Avon Park experiment involved using specially equipped aircraft to release hundreds of thousands of mosquitoes in paper bags, designed to open upon impact with the ground, in areas heavily populated by poor blacks. One elderly resident told Albarelli and Martel, “Nobody knew about what had gone on here for years, maybe over 20 years, but in looking back it explained why a bunch of healthy people got sick quick and died at the time of those experiments.”

According to CIA documents associated with Project MKNAOMI, the species of mosquito used was Aedes aegypti which, also, is said to carry Zika.

The role of dengue and Zika is not clear and scientists are exploring the question of whether there is a connection between the two and, specifically, if the presence of dengue in pregnant women makes Zika exposure more dangerous to the unborn baby.

According to Christopher Dye at the World Health Organization: “Women with antibodies to dengue viruses might develop higher levels of virus in the blood if they contract Zika virus. Those higher levels of virus in the blood might allow Zika to occasionally cross the placenta into the fetus, and trigger infection that damages its developing brain. . . . Certainly what we know about the interactions between dengue serotypes suggests that this kind of thing is not impossible in a virus of this sort.”


Dr. Michael Diamond at the Washington University School of Medicine states that Dye’s concern that dengue may make Zika more active is legitimate. Speaking to “STAT,” a health and medicine website, Diamond said, “I think it’s in the back of all of our minds. . . . We don’t know. But I think those of us in the field think it could.”

Albarelli and Martel reported experiments similar to Avon Park were done in Key West according to a 1978 Pentagon publication, but “the bulk of the documentation concerning this highly classified and covert work is still held by the Pentagon as ‘secret.’ One former Fort Detrick researcher says the Army ‘performed a number of experiments in the area of the keys,’ but that ‘not all concerned dengue virus.’ ”

The largest known mosquito experiment was called Operation Bellwether in 1959, conceived in Fort Detrick, according to Albarelli and Martel. Designed to determine the “rate of biting” and “mosquito aggressiveness,” the experiments were done “in partnership with scientists with the Rockefeller Institute in New York, where scientists bred their own strain of mosquitoes,” they wrote. Bellwether experiments were done in Florida as well as Georgia, Maryland, Utah, and Arizona. Private corporations, institutes, and public universities worked with the Army, according to the 1978 Pentagon document, including Armour Research Foundation (1951-1954), the Battelle Memorial Institute (1952-1965), Ben Venue Labs, Inc. (1953-1954), University of Florida (1953-1956), Florida State University (1951-1953), and the Lovell Chemical Company (1951-1955).

The fact that Americans were unsuspecting guinea pigs in secret government experiments isn’t “conspiracy theory”—it is fact.

What we don’t know today, considering the nearly $2 billion President Barack Hussein Obama is requesting to study the Zika virus, is whether the Zika problem is being overstated merely to help shuttle massive funding in support of scientific cronyism, or if there’s something more sinister afoot.

Considering the history of experimentation, outright lies, and malfeasance from government and “industry,” being highly skeptical of GM mosquitoes seems wise.

Donate to us

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine and his wife, Carole. To receive a free issue of Carotec Health Report—a monthly newsletter loaded with well-researched and reliable alternative health information—please write Carotec, P.O. Box 9919, Naples, FL 34101 or call 1-800-522-4279. Also included will be a list of the high-quality health supplements Carotec recommends.

NEW BOOK FROM AFP: 9/11: United States–Sponsored Terrorism

The weeks following the attacks of September 11, 2001, were traumatic for nearly every American, but for some, the answers they received from the media and the government to explain the horrific events was not satisfactory.

Accusations of cover-ups, internal plots, and sabotage from within the ranks of the U.S. government were—and continue to be—not uncommon.

But compelling evidence contrary to the accepted narrative has, for some skeptics, been lacking.

This investigation into the events of that day reveals dark secrets about United States–sponsored terrorism. Taking highly complex technical and scientific information, and distilling it for the consumption of the lay person, this inquiry attempts to reveal the truth behind that infamous day.

Black911250Softcover, 288 pages

Buy Book Button

Donate to us

Obama’s Ghetto Plan

• Congress fails to kill president’s social engineering program.

By John Friend —

In a welcome victory for conservative values, the United States House of Representatives recently voted in favor of an amendment that would kill one of the worst examples of the Obama administration’s overreach into the affairs of local governments. However, just as this newspaper went to press the amendment was defeated in the Senate, due to stiff opposition from liberal Democrats and spineless Republicans, by a vote of 60 to 37.

The Senate version of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations legislation included the amendment proposed by Senators Mike Shumway “Mike” Lee (R-Utah) and Richard Craig Shelby (R-Ala.) that would have prohibited federal funding and implementation of THUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation. For the past two years in a row, the House has passed an amendment to the THUD appropriations bill that is similar to the Lee-Shelby proposed measure.

Although that amendment was defeated today, language was approved that prohibits the federal government from using any of the funds made available by the act “to direct a grantee to undertake specific changes to existing zoning laws as part of carrying out” the AFFH rule. In other words, the federal government cannot usurp local zoning rules.


Rick Manning, the president of Americans for Limited Government, stated, “[T]his limiting language will provide municipalities and counties a small, legal foothold to resist HUD [Housing and Urban Development] coercion to condition the community development block grants on submission of HUD-approved local zoning plans.”

The AFFH regulation, which has been widely criticized by conservatives and limited-government advocates, increased the power of the federal government, allowing it to essentially dictate local zoning policy in an effort to artificially create equality in housing and access to community resources. Using race, income, and other social data from the U.S. Census, federal bureaucrats will be allowed to interfere with local zoning policies in order to implement their radical egalitarian agenda, effectively reshaping neighborhoods to match their utopian vision of multiculturalism —and there is nothing local residents can do about it.

“There is zero excuse for allowing the federal government to dictate local zoning policy via community development block grants to impose racial and income zoning quotas on cities and counties,” Manning recently stated. “Zoning ordinances only determine what can be built where, not who lives there. People can move wherever they want, and rent or buy. Real housing discrimination, that is, denying housing on the basis of race, has been illegal for decades.”

It should be clear to all that the Obama administration’s radical Marxist agenda to systematically engineer local communities through federal regulations and policies, such as the AFFH policy, will ultimately result in failure and a further degradation in the living standards of the productive middle and working class.

“Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is not about expanding the poor’s access to housing; it’s about expanding the federal government’s reach into local municipalities,” said Manning.

Donate to us

John Friend is a California-based writer who maintains a blog.

Turning America Into One Massive Ghetto

• Since sane people won’t move to bad neighborhoods, feds will bring bad neighborhoods to you

By Kevin Jackson

Since most white people are too afraid to say it, I will say it for them. These cities, run by blacks and Latinos are cesspools. Black and brown took beautiful cityscapes, and made them into the most filthy places in America.

The side effect of white people leaving is that many of our cities have failed. The inmates were now running the asylum, and they were giving away the farm. With no tax base, cities were mostly left with unemployed crackheads, and thus can’t balance the books—that is, when Democrats like Ray Nagin, Kwame Kilpatrick, Marion Barry, et al. were not actually cooking the books.

Nobody who wants to live to life-expectancy would live in one of these urban sewers, which is why Democrats are scheming to move the sewer rats to the suburbs. As the New York Post reports:

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

“Hillary’s rumored running mate, Housing Secretary Julian Castro, is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy.”

The Post said: “The scheme involves super-sizing vouchers to help urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas, such as Westchester County, [N.Y.] while assigning them government real-estate agents called ‘mobility counselors’ to secure housing in the exurbs.”

“Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods. . . . It’s all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs,” the Post concluded.

All this is part of Agenda 21, whereby the city idiots are moved to the suburbs to offset the voting of the sane people. Consider where the map of America is red, which is 98% of the country. Outside of cities, you can hardly find a Democrat. Like the Muslim horde the Democrats are bringing from war-torn countries, the Democrats see bringing minorities from gang-infested neighborhoods to you, complete with dope dealers, rapists, murders, and worst of all . . . liberals!

Donate to us

Kevin Jackson is a national speaker, a radio show host on Salem Communications out of Tampa, Florida, and a frequent guest on a variety of other national radio shows.

North Carolina Battles Perversion

• Federal fruitcakes threaten states over toilets for people with gender confusion.

By Ronald L. Ray —

Despite massive evidence that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton violated the law and endangered national security using her private email server, the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) cannot seem to put together an indictment against her. But let the state of North Carolina pass a common-sense law requiring people to use only public restrooms appropriate to their biological sex, and the feds file a lawsuit within weeks, while threatening every school and college in the nation with loss of funding or additional lawsuits if they do not allow so-called transgender individuals to use the taxpayer-subsidized sports team, toilet, shower, or bedroom of their choice.

On March 23, the North Carolina legislature passed, and the governor signed, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act (H.B. 2), which took effect immediately and requires, among other things, that people use the public restroom that corresponds to the biological sex with which they were born.

The law responds to the city of Charlotte’s “dangerous” ordinance, as expressed by N.C. Senate President Phil Berger, that would have allowed “men into public bathrooms and locker rooms with young girls and women” and “created a loophole that any man with nefarious motives could use to prey on women and young children.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

According to the DoJ’s complaint, “Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest stated that the Charlotte Ordinance ‘would have given pedophiles, sex offenders, and perverts free rein to watch women, boys, and girls undress and use the bathroom.’” The legitimacy of this very realistic concern and compelling state interest is passed over in silence, however, by the DoJ and other proponents of unnatural vice.

In filing the lawsuit against North Carolina, the University of North Carolina, and various public officials, the DoJ relied on ideological assertions about sex and gender by the lesbian-gaybisexual-transgender-queer (LGBTQ) lobbyists and their shills in psychology and sociology. The feds also employed specious reasoning in claiming that North Carolina’s law allegedly violates various federal civil rights laws—necessitating a false reading of those statutes which flies in the face of the plain meaning of the words.


North Carolina responded with a lawsuit of its own, calling the federal action “a baseless and blatant overreach.” The suit further states that, “Transgender status is not a protected class” under the law. The state asserts that the Obama administration is circumventing Congress.

Moreover, a letter issued jointly on May 13 by the DoJ and U.S. Department of Education seeks to impose special privileges for the LGBTQ lobby on all schools receiving federal funding, promising a showdown with the vast majority of Americans and numerous state governments. A few, like Texas, have told the feds to “bring it on.”

Attorney General Loretta Elizabeth Lynch announced the legal action against H.B. 2 on May 9 in what was clearly a purely political speech. Having received their orders, the media myrmidons marched forth in lockstep to disseminate the corresponding propaganda, drawing parallels, as NBC put it, to “ending Jim Crow laws that enforced segregation [and] Brown v. Board of Education—which codified ending separate education for white and black students.”

Private corporations like Target, Barnes & Noble, and Starbucks have joined the war against the family by instituting “transgender” restrooms in their establishments, provoking massive popular backlash and boycotts.

The present incursion by jackbooted federal thugs into the most private areas of man’s life—the bedroom and the bathroom—is the latest front in the unending war by cultural Marxists against the family and civilization. The goal is not “equal rights,” but special privileges for a tiny minority, who comprise less than 3% of the population.

Donate to us

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.

Obama’s Russia Policy Risks War

• Military encirclement of Russians increases risk of nuclear showdown.

By Ronald L. Ray —

President Ronald Wilson Reagan successfully negotiated arms limitation treaties with the Soviet Union, which Russia still honors. But beginning with President George H.W. Bush, America’s policy toward the world’s largest country has been one of betrayal, encirclement, and military escalation. Barack Hussein Obama, amid poorly concocted propaganda excuses, has continued the insane provocation of the Russian bear and, most recently, contributed further to world instability by determining to station up to 4,000 more North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops near Russia’s western border, while completing and activating an apparently prohibited ballistic missile shield in the same region.

Ever since Russians and Eastern Europeans threw off the communist yoke at the end of the 1980s, their ideological cousins, the Zio-capitalists and Trotskyite neoconservatives, have sought to reconquer those nations in their quest for world empire. From economic exploitation to regional conflicts and military brinkmanship, the elites of the New World Order have endeavored to bring an independent Russia and its former satellite nations to heel. While the smaller states largely have capitulated, Russia is still free and sovereign.

Thus, the United States and NATO continue to increase their military presence in Eastern Europe, while staging multiple military exercises as close as 50 miles from Russian soil. This is the equivalent of Russia and the other BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations holding military exercises in Canada, Mexico, and near California’s Long Beach Naval Shipyard, while stationing troops and missiles in Cuba and throughout the Caribbean. Were such to happen, the U.S. would not respond merely with its own military exercises in Texas and Michigan. Yet, in the reverse situation, we label Russia as the “aggressor.”

The U.S. and NATO, counting on Americans’ 15-minute political memory, want us to believe they are reacting defensively to Russian provocations against Eastern European states. But while America sends soldiers and sailors halfway across the world for “defensive purposes,” Russia has not crossed its borders in search of empire.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Orton Work claimed duplicitously, “The Russians have been doing a lot of snap exercises right up against the borders, with a lot of troops. . . . From our perspective, we could argue this is extraordinarily provocative behavior.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The four battalions—2,800 to 4,000 men—which NATO, as of May 2016, wants to send to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, are actually part of a 40,000-troop build-up announced last summer and fall. In reaction, Russia has staged a number of military readiness exercises near its border. The U.S. and NATO, in Orwellian fashion, then used this mild defensive response as “justification” for their own previously announced aggression.

While the U.S. appears set to send two of the battalions, it is demanding a multi-national force, including a significant contingent from Germany, no doubt as an attempt to sour German trade ties with Russia, a main energy supplier. However, 69% of Germans oppose sending troops. Even the United Kingdom seems reluctant to supply military units. Perhaps those countries have a little more sense than U.S. warmongers.

Still, the mere announcements of troop deployments have a destabilizing effect. Worse, the U.S. and its NATO lackeys use dangerous word games to flout the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, which prohibits permanent stationing of “significant” NATO forces near Russia’s borders. Western officials claim placements are not “permanent,” so long as individual units are rotated periodically.


With such “logic,” one could argue that a prisoner is not under permanent guard, because the jail personnel change every eight hours. Russia rightly has seen through this cheap sophistry and warned that continued provocations by the West constitute “the start of a new arms race,” risking nuclear war—an observation termed a “threat” by American political hacks.

Recent activation of NATO’s U.S.-built Aegis Ashore ballistic missile “defense” site in Romania, along with Aegis systems on Mediterranean warships and elsewhere in Europe, is a violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, says Russia, and will force the latter to increase military spending to counter the threat. The U.S. is due to complete a similar site in Poland in 18 months.

Russian officials sharply rebuked Deputy Secretary Work’s unbelievable claim that the moves are not against Russia, but a defense against Iran, which has no nuclear weapons or long-range ballistic missile capabilities to attack Europe.

Additionally, the U.S. promised $68 million to build NATO bases in Estonia, Latvia demanded additional NATO troops and tanks, and the U.S. may share a Polish military base, while the Polish foreign minister claimed Russia is an “existential threat,” although the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria supposedly is not. Two weeks of war games also began in the country of Georgia this month, involving U.S. and British troops.

NATO plans new headquarters in Hungary and Slovakia, perhaps as a threat to keep those countries from tilting toward Russia. And there is the ongoing problem of the terroristic, U.S.-installed, Jewish-run puppet government in Ukraine.

We agree with Russian President Vladimir Putin that the U.S. must “act respectfully toward all its partners, including Russia,” and renounce American “exceptionalism” and “imperial ambitions” of world domination. Peaceful cooperation must replace the militaristic madness driving the U.S. foreign policy of perpetual war, slaughter, and annihilation.

Donate to us

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.

Afghanistan: Longest War in U.S. History

• $4.5 trillion and the war is far from over.

By Richard Walker —

The war in Afghanistan, now the longest in United States history, has become a forgotten war that has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. As the fighting grinds on, there are increasing reports that U.S. military leadership is in disarray, leaving soldiers, who are stationed there, wondering what they are even doing in the mountainous country.

According to a recent Pentagon report, troops, numbering approximately 10,000, are unclear about their role or how to defeat an enemy that is growing in power and now controls the majority of the country.

According to top U.S. military officials, not only is al Qaeda back in the mix, planning operations with the Taliban, but the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has emerged as an additional threat.

The combat mission by all accounts is no longer clear. One of the stark ironies of the Afghan conflict is that, despite the 2014 declaration by President Barack Hussein Obama that the Afghanistan war was “coming to a responsible conclusion,” fighting has continued unabated.

In addition, according to experts on the war, such as Bill Roggio, the editor of the online blog The Long War Journal,” which tracks the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Taliban “probably either controls or heavily influences half of the country.”

It is worth noting that the number of U.S. troops now in Afghanistan, said to be 10,000, matches exactly the figure for the U.S. force there in 2002-2003 before it ballooned to 150,000. What has never been made clear in what are being called the post 9-11 wars—Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq—is just how many mercenaries, known as “contractors,” have been on the ground in any given year.

Sadly, the Afghan war is nowhere near over, so it is important to reflect on what it has cost so far in terms of human life and dollars.

The coalition fatalities total is 3,517 of which 2,281 are U.S. service personnel. The U.S. wounded total stands at 17,764. It is worth noting that the numbers for mercenaries, or “contractors,” killed and wounded are unavailable because the law does not require their deaths or injuries to be reported. Considering the very large number of contractor personnel known to have been in combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, some estimates have placed their death toll at 9,700. The true figure could well be double that. It would mean more contractors have died in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq than coalition troops. Overall, the Iraq conflict has claimed the lives of 4,501 American combat troops with 32,223 wounded.

Texas has suffered the most dead and wounded service personnel from the post 9-11 wars of any state. With respect to Afghanistan, Texas has seen 185 fatalities and 976 wounded. Iraq claimed 420 dead and 3,230 wounded.

It is hard to be exact about the ongoing financial cost of the war in Afghanistan because Congress has never made efforts to streamline the levels of accountability necessary to accurately assess expenditures. Nevertheless, there have been credible studies that show both wars have cost $4.4 trillion. That total will rise by an estimated $9.7 trillion in interest charges in decades to come due to the fact the wars were launched on funds borrowed mostly from China. As much as $450 billion, if not a lot more, could be required for the Afghan war between now and 2020. Taking into account the vast amounts lost on waste and fraud, and the so-called spending on infrastructure, which was really money spent on the Afghan military—and likewise the Iraqi military—the true costs for both wars are likely to be much higher.


And how about Afghan civilians? While the Pentagon has a history of denying the true numbers of civilian deaths in its foreign wars, the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University has put the total of civilians killed by direct violence of the wars, by all sides in both conflicts, at 370,000. However, it has stressed that the total is likely to be many times more if one includes the numbers of civilians who have died as a result of malnutrition, damaged infrastructure, and “environmental degradation.”

To understand what Afghanistan has become, it is worth considering what Qais Azimy, a senior journalist who has lived in the Afghan capital throughout the war, has to say. He believes the Afghan people have lost hope, and few have positive thoughts about the future.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

“Many here feel the international community has lost interest in the country and that Afghan blood doesn’t matter anymore,” he said. “The feeling of abandonment is snatching away any hope.”

A stark example of the chaos and lack of accountability for civilian deaths in Afghanistan is the U.S. bombing of a hospital in Kunduz on October 3, 2015, that left 42 doctors, nurses, patients, and orderlies dead. No one in the U.S. military has been able to explain why the bombing continued for an hour despite calls for it to stop. In the aftermath there was much finger-pointing with U.S. Special Forces blaming the Afghans for providing incorrect coordinates. The episode highlighted the confusion in the ranks of the U.S. military and the fact that the war with the Taliban has been intensifying.

Donate to us

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Master Puppetmaster

By Dr. Matthew Johnson —

Short of a deliberate or unintentional American abdication, the only real alternative to American global leadership in the foreseeable future is international anarchy. In that respect, it is correct to assert that America has become, as President Clinton put it, the world’s indispensable nation.[1]

This quotation is central to Brzezinski’s work, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997). While the book is dated, it still contains the essential ideas of postmodern Western imperialism. Its central idea is that the American imperium is not an empire in the 19th century sense. Instead, it is a hegemony that can create and enforce basic rules of international legitimacy. It is an “empire,” but one that is compassionate rather than violent. Since the implosion of the Soviet Bloc, the United States and its “values” became universal norms. This is a mystification. It is nothing other than liberalism pretending to be objective “human rights.”

Brzezinski argues that “values” are crucial in differentiating the American imperium from older empires. The older idea of “empire” was inherently exploitative. The colonizer “owned” the colonized. Brzezinski is making the claim that this older imperial concept of power has no relation to the World Order forged under American power.

The values that Brzezinski claims are quintessentially American are obscure and indefinite. They center around the guarantee of rational and fair procedures such as fair trials and freedom of assembly. Human rights, however, have little to do with procedures but concern results as states of affairs.

Holding to a set of values that stress procedural action rather than a result such as justice is never honest. No one has ever died for a procedure. “Elections” are merely abstract. Who wins them, how and why, and what they do with this newly found power, is not. Using procedural terminology is intellectually fraudulent.

Intellectuals specializing in imperial ideas such as Marco Gandásegui, emphasize that “universalist” or “human rights” rhetoric, while seemingly basing itself only on procedures actually defines a “democratic procedure” as that which leads to liberal victories.  Gandásegui argues in his 2007 article on western imperialism that “democracy” rhetoric actually means that western values and institutions should remold the world. “Human rights,” according to this piece, revolve around privileged access of American capital to foreign markets. The U.S. denounced the Serbian Radical Party’s victories in the elections of the 1990s, even though the election itself was free and fair. The U.S. banned the Ba’ath party in Iraq after the ouster of President Hussein. The violent ouster of president Yanukovych of Ukraine was seen as acceptable. The 2010 election of A. Lukashenko of Belarus was condemned prior to the actual election. Vladimir Putin’s party and movement, popular in Russia, have also been denounced, whether the elections have been considered fair or not. The point is that “democracy” does not refer to the procedures of voting and free speech, but deal exclusively with liberal outcomes.[2]

Brzezinski contends that the U.S. has a right to control the very vocabulary used to determine a government’s legitimacy. This right exists largely because liberalism serves the interests of capital. Capital cannot reach its full oligarchic potential in any other system.[3]  The following points are taken as obvious truisms through the book:

  1. Liberalism alone grants legitimacy.
  2. Liberal values are comprehensive and self-evidently true. They require no supporting argumentation.
  3. The “global community” is a real entity, but the “nation” is the product of “myth.” It has the right to intervene wherever “democracy” is threatened.
  4. Implicitly, the American taxpayer should be coerced to pay for these actions.
  5. Capitalism is the sole rational mode of production.
  6. Liberal democratic capitalism should be (and is) the only ideology that has the right to be imposed and enforced with American arms.
  7. The only objects that exist in the universe are individuals. Collectives are only conventions.
  8. Nationalism (which is undefined here) is inherently monstrous and ruinous. This includes all forms of economic nationalism such as import substitution.
  9. Only the leader of global liberalism has the right to intervene in the politics of other states. Anyone else, especially if they are against the liberal consensus, does not have this right and should be obstructed by force.
  10. American influence and power, if it is controlled by liberal values, is inherently just.[4]

None of the above receives any extended argument. The author believes, or would like to inculcate the belief, that all reasonable people believe as he does. Any further argumentation to be found in the book assumes the above 10 points as true, and extrapolates with this assumption.

What is noteworthy is Brzezinski’s belief that Eurasia is essential for global control.[5] This is true, and has an important place in the structure of this book. Eurasia in general and Central Asia in particular is considered crucial for several interlocking reasons. First, American domination of this region is essential for checking Russia. Significant Russian minorities exist throughout Eurasia, and this worries our author greatly. He argues that these minorities might give Russia an “excuse” to intervene. Russia has no such right. Intervention is a prerogative of the U.S. alone.[6]

The worst possible outcome for this ideological view is the formation of a China-Russia-Iran coalition. For Brzezinski this is legitimate cause for war.  The containment of China, as an ally of Russia, by herself, also requires American control. The list of “rogue” states common in all liberal and neoconservative sources have several things in common: they have a strong state sector, they reject liberalism as an ideology and have erected traditional forms of governance, they remain hostile to Israel, and almost always support Russia in international politics.

For writers such as C.E. Martins, this is a cover for the eventual U.S. control of the fuel resources in places such as Central Asia. The actual “nightmare scenario” is foreign, that is, Russian or Chinese, authority over the Central Asian oil and gas transport systems. The “human rights” rhetoric, so argues Martins, should not be taken seriously because it covers for crass western economic interests. Simply put, tight American (or pro-American) domination of energy transport is essential for American economic recovery.[7]

For  Brzezinski, two essential concepts guide (or should guide) American foreign policy. The first is redundant, since it is the “preservation of U.S. hegemony.” This is important because, secondly, the final end of this imperium is the creation of a totally democratic, liberal and borderless world.[8] The creation of this “cooperative world” requires American enforcement of liberalism as an official ideology. On what basis anyone would cooperate in such a world is left unstated.

The arguments Brzezinski crafts suggest that democracy will automatically create pro-American governments. This is a restatement of the idea that “democracy” refers not to procedures, but results. For example, Brzezinski worries much over China. To limit and control China’s free movement in Asia is of crucial importance. He holds that China’s rapid development is a positive thing.[9] It only becomes a problem when it allies with non-liberal (and hence, ipso facto, illegitimate) governments such as Burma. The Chinese are given an ultimatum: without “democratization,” the U.S. will use its (slowly evaporating) bases in Central Asia to use other forms of persuasion. It is not an exaggeration that control over Eurasian energy and the need to check Chinese expansion is the thesis of this book and the purpose of Brzezinski’s work in general.[10]

Concerning Russia, Brzezinski states:

The post-Soviet Russian elite had apparently also expected that the West would not aid in, or at least not impede, the restoration of a central Russian role in the post-Soviet space. They thus resented the West’s willingness to help the newly independent states consolidate their separate political existence.[11]

Russia is a problem due to her geographic location. A strong Russia is troublesome because Russia alone, or in an alliance, can exert influence over Central Asia. With the U.S. broke, cynical and overstretched, a Russo-Chinese gamble here is quite rational. The fact that Russia has minorities in Kazakhstan—about 30% of the Kazakh population—automatically involves Russia in Central Asia. Because of the Eurasian views of Kazakh president N. Nazarbayev, Brzezinski then shifts to Uzbekistan as the future of Eurasia, since fewer Russian speakers live there. So in this section of the book, yet a new concept of “legitimacy” emerges: a legitimate state is one within which Russia has few investments or citizens.[12]

Brzezinski contends for a strong U.S. presence in European Union (EU) policy. Russia again is the reason. Germany, for example, must be forced to apologize endlessly for its part in World War II. States to him are instruments for broader ends. Germany, for example, has no interests of her own, but retains “legitimacy” only to the extent that she stabilizes Central Europe and check Russia. Brzezinski also argues that a German-Polish alliance would increase international trust for Germany and, more importantly, serve as a check on Russia.[13] By the end of this book, all other states drop out of contention and Russia alone is revealed as the sole concern of U.S. foreign policy. Therefore, Brzezinski is making the case that global control and the ability to check a Russo-Chinese alliance are the same thing. The alternative is “international anarchy.”

The vehemently anti-imperialist Ludwig von Mises Institute says this in a sarcastic 1998 review of the book:

The good professor’s “argument” is no more than a crude verbal trick. By “international anarchy” he means nothing more than a system of states not controlled by a hegemonic power or otherwise unified. Since no other country has sufficient power to assume global control, then if we set aside the imperial purple, by definition, a state of anarchy remains.

But why is “global anarchy,” that is, the existence of numerous national and regional alliance structures, so bad? Brzezinski does not feel the need to explain. He does refer to various problems that hint at a reason, especially “overpopulation” and refugees, but it is never made clear why only U.S. power can deal with it. By the end of the book, any sensitive reader begins to realize that the underlying argument is that U.S. power is its own justification.

The U.S. should take the following stance concerning European issues according to Brzezinski:

  1. The EU should be seen as a partner to the U.S. This is partly based on Germany’s ability to check Russia without becoming too powerful.
  2. The French too, have their own role in the American imperium. Since Germany can never be trusted, she too must be checked. France has this role and must fight any possible “separate peace” between Russia and Germany.
  3. Europe has no real identity. For the author, this is a very good thing. National cultures need to be obliterated lest they become sources for national rebellions. American hegemony over the EU, at least in part, is to ensure that all nationalist parties and movements are quickly squashed.
  4. The American “partnership” with the EU is conditional. In fact, it is soon contradicted. Whenever American interests are threatened, the U.S. has the right to intervene in any way it deems proper.
  5. Finally, the sole real purpose of the EU is to create a unified liberal order against Russia.[14]

Writers such as Professor O.C. Leiva stress that such an approach—the one advocated by Brzezinski—is about American economic interests or, more specifically, the status of the American oligarchs. Since democracy encourages a “weaker” form of state, riddled by factions based upon access to financial power, the subject state is ripe for capital penetration.[15]

The emphasis on American power is not really based on liberalism. That is merely a weapon to deprive would-be rebels of a strong cultural foundation to rebel. Without national ethnic cultures, there can be no imperialism. Imperialism, by definition, is the imposition of one social elite upon a functioning culture. If there is no functioning culture, then there is no imperialism. Instead, American power exists to prevent the emergence of any rival trading bloc. China and Russia fill that role. Now, the U.S. can rearm itself against a new set of enemies, and nationalism replaces communism (though some of us hold that it was nationalism all along). These mythical enemies also contain a powerful economic alternative to Washington.

Leiva writes in the context of discussing the official statements found within the U.S. National Security Policy book which is yearly released and updated by the White House:

The objective existence of the global capitalist economy is evident in the development of a global productive structure and the global circulation of merchandise and capital superimposed on the national economies and greater than their mere sum. Its origin goes back to the first phases of the development of capitalism. Protectionism and free exchange were always thought of as global economic policies adopted in accordance with the level of development and needs of national capitalisms participating in the world economy. . . .[16]

The new U.S. national security policy transmitted from the executive branch to Congress establishes three key principles: (1) peerless American global military dominance; (2) the assumed right to use force anywhere U.S. interests are vulnerable; and (3) the immunity of U.S. nationals from any court not specifically American. This is merely a succinct and formal statement of imperial rule.

OC Leiva is an essential author in this field because he shows how the argument Brzezinski promotes is to be put into practice. He is not advocating for a policy but is just defending what is presently in force. Liberal democracy leaves politicians in an everlasting scramble for money, support and positive media treatment. All of these show the dominance of private capital over public outcomes. All candidates must receive their funding from powerful sources of wealth. The unending failure of liberal democracy is the distinct and inescapable privatization of the entire process. The dirty secret of democracy is that politicians have no power, but serve the interests of others that do.

Brzezinski’s rhetoric can be summarized in three points:

  1. Liberalism and democracy are the same. Democracy is not a set of procedures, but an ideological formulation.[17] The U.S. has the obligation to enforce this view throughout the world. The end of the “Cold War” suggests that capitalism and liberalism have eliminated its resistance and therefore have earned their role as the default intellectual perspective that, as a result, requires no argument.
  2. Liberal democracy within capitalism requires constant infusions of cash for its authorized candidates. Politicos require money and constructive media exposure in the same way that states require access to credit. This means that those who control wealth must, ipso facto, control the electoral process.[18]
  3. If access to credit is largely under the control of a few omnipotent banks, then liberal democracy is a means to create a universe of dependent economic entities in debt to western finance.

Brzezinski is advocating a cooperative and integrated global regime with the U.S. elite at the helm. Globalization, however, is primarily economic. It is about the minimization of production and transport costs and, of course, the continual decline of labor power and wages. Modern liberalism is based on this general approach. Liberalism cannot be discussed as an abstract ideal, but only in reference to its actual functioning. In the economic world, liberalism has promoted, whether willingly or not, oligarchy and consolidation. In liberalism’s assumed nominalism and ideological rush to strip man of any cultural moorings, it has done nothing but clear the field for the rule of conglomerates. In practice, globalization is really that access to credit (which is the same as control over global investments) is in the hands of a few well-connected elites with no connection to “America” or any other country.



Brzezinski, Zbigniew. 1997. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The Hegemonic Imperative. Winter 1998,

Martins, C.E. And Timothy Thompson (2007). The Impasses of U.S. Hegemony: Perspectives for the Twenty-first Century. Latin American Perspectives, 34(1), 16-28

Leiva, O. and M. Medrano (2007). The World Economy and the United States at the Beginning of the Twenty-first Century. Latin American Perspectives, 34(1), 9-15

Gandásegui , MA and CI Clement (2007). Is the Soviet Collapse Dragging the United States Down? Latin American Perspectives, 34(6), 149-161

Dugin, A. (2012) The Fourth Political Theory. Arktos Press

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

[1]   Brzezinski, 1997, 195

[2]   Gandásegui, 2007, 159

[3]    Brzezinski, 1997, 8

[4]    See Brzezinski, pps 37-40, though these points are argued throughout.

[5]    Brzezinski, 1997, pps 50-55

[6]    See pps 55ff, while this sounds like a caricature of his position, it is not, but is seriously argued on these pages.

[7]    Martins, 2007, 17-20

[8]    Brzezinski, 1997, 38-41

[9]    This merely means that the U.S. can do little against such a large power.

[10]  cf. 130ff

[11]  Pg. 103

[12]  Ibid; the book oscillates between a universal policy concept that is free of any specific issues and the fact that Russia alone seems to stand in its way.

[13]  68-71; the creation of a Germano-Polish alliance seems as feasible as a Russo-Polish one. The strange idea that Germany must endlessly win the “trust” of western elites suggests that the author here is advocating using World War II as leverage in dealing with Germany and its allies from 60 years ago.

[14]  cf. pps 70-72

[15]  Leiva, 2007, pps 8-12. The simply argument is that democracy does not allow coordinated state action. This is questionable, but the basic point remains. Democratic states are factionalized. Therefore, when a corporation or bank wants to set up shop, they need to discover and then patronize those factions that stand to gain from it.

[16]  Quoted from the Leiva paper, pps 9-11

[17]  This is A. Dugin’s argument in his recently translated Fourth Political Theory

[18]  This is not to suggest that politicians have power. They do not write nor read the bills they vote on, especially given the length of the typical Congressional bill. They have no control over what will be added to it, how it will be manifest in bureaucratic practice, or how the judicial branch will modify it. A politician is just a marque to place on a law that is written and interpreted by others far less notable. Furthermore, corporations that help draft bills also have the power to challenge aspects of it that are considered irritating. Microsoft’s well known victory against charges of monopoly and restraint of trade from both the U.S. and EU attests to this.

Donate to us

Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, an Orthodox priest and the author of several books, is a scholar of Russian Orthodox history and philosophy, whose research focuses on ethnic nationalism, Eurasianism and the Orthodox tradition as forms of rebellion against globalism. He is a former professor of both history and political science at the University of Nebraska, Penn State University and Mount St. Mary’s University. The massive increase in writing on Russian politics over the last few years has granted him the honor of being one the most plagiarized men on the Internet.

ISIS Outmaneuvers the West

• While “Allies” have eyes on Syria, Islamic State relocates forces to Libya.

By Richard Walker —

While the Western powers and the Iraqi military have been planning a strategic assault on the Islamic State (ISIS) stronghold of Mosul, leaders of the radical Islamic group have outmaneuvered them by moving thousands of fighters to war-torn Libya to consolidate their grip on large swaths of that country.

The ISIS strategy poses a major headache for Europe because Washington and its allies, aside from launching a few drone strikes and Special Forces raids against ISIS figures in parts of Libya, lack a solution for dealing with the monster they have created.

Created out of the chaos of the United States war on Iraq and intermittently aided by U.S. intelligence and the Israelis, ISIS over the years has grown into a monster.

The radical group recently warned it will bring terror to the streets of Rome and its base of operations in Libya makes that a real possibility.

ISIS can also strike directly across the Mediterranean at Greece and has begun expanding into sub-Saharan Africa.

In the meantime, Egypt has discovered that having ISIS on its doorstep has resulted in increasing instability. Egypt’s 621-mile border with Libya has allowed ISIS to move weapons to its cells in Cairo and other cities. At the same time, ISIS has opened a front against the Egyptian military in the Sinai, bordering Israel. As a consequence, Israel claims it has been secretly helping Egypt target ISIS in Egypt and Libya.

The threat ISIS in Libya poses may be greater than the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Egypt or Israel imagined when ISIS first moved into the Libyan city of Sirte in early 2015. Missing from NATO’s calculations at the time was the fact that President Barack Hussein Obama and his allies had made such a mess of the country when they overthrew Colonel Muammar Qadaffi in 2011 that they effectively created a situation ripe for takeover by radicals.

Refusing to learn the lessons of the Iraq War, NATO bombed Libya from the air for 56 days, destroying its infrastructure, its military, and its national police force. Rather than putting troops on the ground, NATO hailed its use of Islamist militias. Some of those militias were later recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency in Washington’s efforts to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. They became the backbone of ISIS and have since returned to Libya to help ISIS expand its so-called caliphate there.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

In the past five years, Libya has been torn apart by infighting between warring entities. It has two governments and parliaments with a third government approved by the United Nations waiting in the wings. As a consequence, there is no national army or police force capable of going up against ISIS, which could soon control Libya’s oil fields.

This is in stark contrast to the Libya under Qadaffi, which was a stable, sophisticated, beautiful country that provided education, food, and clean drinking water to Libyans.

The ongoing crisis in Libya has increased the migrant flow from there, causing consternation in the corridors of power in Europe. Austria has even proposed building a wall in the Brenner Pass in the Alps to cut it off from Italy.



Lost in the mass media coverage of thousands of migrants perishing on ships fleeing Libya is the role played by financial institutions in the assassination of Qadaffi and Libya’s subsequent collapse.

Professor Horace G. Campbell of Syracuse University has identified some of the financial culprits who wanted to control Libya’s oil riches:

“What has been kept from the citizens of the U.S. is the role of financial enterprises such as Goldman Sachs, Tradition Financial Services of Switzerland, French bank Société Générale SA, hedge-fund firm Och-Ziff Capital Management Group, and private-equity firm Blackstone Group in their dealings with the Libyan Investment Authority.”

Campbell also believes Congress has deliberately hidden the truth about Libya from the American public. He has singled out figures like Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) for concealing “the complicity of the U.S. and intelligence forces in their dealings with the most extreme militias” in Libya.

According to Russian General Valery Vasilevich Gerasimov, the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the overthrow of Qadaffi in the pursuit of “democratization” resulted in the “dispersed majority of military and political elites forming the core of ISIS.”

There is compelling evidence that the Sunnis in Iraq, who were abandoned when the U.S. invaded, have dominated the ISIS leadership in Iraq and Syria. The same now appears to be happening in Libya.

Donate to us

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Dishonoring Our Greatest Heroes

• The die is cast: multicultural money to be minted in Obama’s mold.

By Patrick J. Buchanan —

In Samuel Eliot Morison’s The Oxford History of the American People, there is a single sentence about Harriet Tubman: “An illiterate field hand, (Tubman) not only escaped herself but returned repeatedly and guided more than 300 slaves to freedom.” Morison, however, devotes most of five chapters to the greatest soldier-statesman in American history, save George Washington, that pivotal figure between the Founding Fathers and the Civil War: Andrew Jackson.

Slashed by a British officer in the Revolution, and a POW at 14, the orphaned Jackson went west, rose to head up the Tennessee militia, crushed an Indian uprising at Horseshoe Bend, Alabama, in the War of 1812, then was ordered to New Orleans to defend the threatened city.

In one of the greatest victories in American history, memorialized in song, Jackson routed a British army and aborted a British scheme to seize New Orleans, close the Mississippi and split the union.

In 1818, ordered to clean out renegade Indians rampaging in Georgia, Jackson stormed into Florida, seized and hanged two British agitators, put the Spanish governor on a boat to Cuba, and claimed Florida for the United States.

Secretary of State John Quincy Adams closed the deal. Florida was ours, and Jacksonville is among its great cities.

Though he ran first in popular and electoral votes in 1824, Jackson was denied the presidency by the “Corrupt Bargain” of Adams and Henry Clay, who got secretary of state.

Jackson came back to win the presidency in 1828, recognized the Texas republic of his old subaltern Sam Houston, who had torn it from Mexico, and saw his vice president elected after his two terms.

He ended his life at his beloved Hermitage, pushing for the annexation of Texas and the nomination of “dark horse” James K. Polk, who would seize the Southwest and California from Mexico and almost double the size of the Union.

Was Jackson responsible for the Cherokees’ “Trail of Tears”? Yes. And Harry Truman did Hiroshima, and Winston Churchill did Dresden.

Great men are rarely good men, and Jackson was a Scots-Irish duelist, Indian fighter, and slave owner. But then, presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were slave owners before him.

To remove his portrait from the front of the $20 bill, and replace it with Tubman’s is affirmative action that approaches the absurd. Whatever one’s admiration for Tubman and her cause, she is not the figure in history Jackson was.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Indeed, if the fight against slavery is the greatest cause in our history, why not honor John Brown, hanged for his raid on Harper’s Ferry to start a revolution to free the slaves, after he butchered slave owners in “Bleeding Kansas”? Brown was the real deal. But replacing Jackson with Tubman is not the only change coming.

The back of the $5 bill will soon feature Martin Luther King, Eleanor Roosevelt, and opera singer Marian Anderson, who performed at the Lincoln Memorial after being kept out of segregated Constitution Hall in 1939.

That act of race discrimination came during the second term of FDR, Eleanor’s husband and the liberal icon who named Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court and put 110,000 Japanese into concentration camps.

And, lest we forget, while Abraham Lincoln remains on the front of the $5 bill, the war he launched cost 620,000 dead, and he believed in white supremacy and racial separatism as well.


Alexander Hamilton, the architect of the American economy, will stay on the $10 bill, due in part to the intervention of hip-hop artists from the popular musical, “Hamilton,” in New York.

But Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Sojourner Truth, who fought for women’s suffrage, will be put on the back of the $10 bill. While Mrs. Anthony and Mrs. Stanton appear in Morison’s history, Ms. Truth does not.

Added up, while dishonoring Jackson, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is putting on the U.S. currency six women—three white, three black—and King. No Catholics, no conservatives, no Hispanics, no white males were apparently even considered.

This is affirmative action raised to fanaticism, a celebration of President Barack Obama’s views and values, and a recasting of our currency to make Obama’s constituents happy at the expense of America’s greatest heroes and historic truth. Leftist role models for American kids now take precedence over the history of our republic in those we honor.

While King already has a holiday and monument in D.C., were the achievements of any of these six women remotely comparable to what the six men honored on our currency—Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jackson, Ulysses Grant, and Ben Franklin—achieved?

In the dystopian novel, 1984, Winston Smith labors in the Ministry of Truth, dropping down the “memory hole” stories that must be rewritten to re-indoctrinate the party and proles in the new history, as determined by Big Brother. Jack Lew would have fit right in there.

Donate to us

Patrick J. Buchanan is a writer, political commentator, presidential candidate and author.

India’s Appalling Secret

• Levels of poverty and pollution shocking for wealthy nation.

By Victor Thorn —

Forget about Beijing as the world’s most polluted city. Delhi, along with the entire country of India, takes the cake as Planet Earth’s most deplorable cesspool. In a February 18 article, CNN’s Charles Riley compared Delhi to “living in a gas chamber.”

Delhi’s 20 million residents aren’t the only ones enduring a hellish existence, as 13 of the world’s top 20 most-polluted cities are found in India.

For a country with a gross domestic product of nearly $2 trillion annually—the UK’s is $2.7 trillion—India’s extreme poverty and pollution is shocking.

It is estimated that 35% of all Indian adults are illiterate, and one in six families live in abject poverty that’s been described as being unfit for human habitation.

Half of Indian youths drop out of school before reaching their teenage years, and one-third of India’s citizens live on $1.25 per day.

A trip around many Indian cities reveals open sewers, pothole-strewn dirt roads instead of pavement, no sidewalks, bus riders blatantly spitting on pedestrians, and beggars sleeping on streets alongside cows and dogs that tear apart dead carcasses.

The lack of basic cleanliness exhibited by urban dwellers is so flagrant that large signs direct people in the following: “Don’t throw trash on the street. Use garbage cans.” However, nobody seems to care. Rotting food, mountains of litter, cow manure, and rivers of stagnant filth cannot be avoided.

To combat rampant homelessness, squatters huddle in buildings not fit for rats. Those who do legitimately rent apartments often only receive electricity after illegally stringing up concocted wiring systems that frequently cause fires.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

That’s not all.

Barely 50% of adult Indians are employed. Some 98,000 Indians die each year from diarrhea, and one-third of the globe’s malnourished toddlers reside in this hellhole. AIDS cases run into the multi-millions, while post-adolescent girls are forced into prostitution or prearranged marriages. Rapes of women of all ages are also rampant.

Appalled by this scenario, on April 14 AMERICAN FREE PRESS contacted Jefferson Varner, author of an article entitled “India: Still the Most Unsanitary Place on Earth?

In addition to discussing India’s nauseating pollution problems, Varner addressed this nation’s biggest taboo secret.


Varner stated: “According to The Indian Express [an Indian daily newspaper that is in English], 60% of India’s 1.3 billion residents lack access to indoor toilets. That’s 775 million people who see open defecation as the norm. The situation is so bad that India’s prime minister had to publicly give a speech in order to raise awareness about using toilets. Still, citizens didn’t care about his declarations. The cultural belief in India is that open defecation is done at their will. After doing so, they let their waste lay rather than cleaning it up. It’s unfathomable.”

To combat these unhygienic practices, Varner elaborated on a newfound strategy.

“The Indian government has spent $495 million to build outdoor latrines, but only nine million of them have been dispersed,” he said. “That means, in some areas, four outdoor johns must serve 20,000 people. Even then, most Indians don’t use them because of long waiting lines and the fact that these latrines are rarely cleaned. It’s unbearable to even step inside of them. Plus, since there’s no fine for public urination, nobody cares.”

The dangers are evident, as Varner deduced.

“Not only are women highly susceptible to rape when they go to the bathroom behind bushes, their small children are sickened by pathogens and tapeworms,” he said. “Thus, India suffers from high infant mortality rates, birth defects, and inadequate lung capacity among their young.”

Incredibly, these behavior patterns don’t only apply to the poor. Varner added, “Wealthy Indians don’t particularly like having nor using a toilet in their homes because they feel it will create an immoral place to worship their gods.”

In conclusion, Varner offered this condolence: “We should be grateful as Americans that we’re not forced to endure these same dire issues that Indians accept as a normal part of their lives.”

Victor Thorn

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.

Corruption at the FDA: Former Chief Sued

• Dr. Margaret Hamburg accused of covering up facts about drugs she knew could be deadly.

By Ronald L. Ray —

Homicide, conspiracy, racketeering, bribery.

These are the stock-in-trade of organized crime and drug dealers. But should they be the practices of a government agency charged with keeping safe what we eat and what we use to treat illness? Sadly, in today’s America, where corporate kleptocrats control the political prostitutes who rule over us, the distinction between the United States republic and a crime syndicate is largely fictitious. So it is that former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Dr. Margaret Ann Hamburg is being sued in federal court for alleged involvement in all of the nefarious activities just cited.

Should we really be surprised? America has suffered repeatedly from the decades-long-merry-go-round of profiteers moving from industry to government “service” and back. Our political system does nothing so much as favor the ruthless and amoral, who exploit the naïveté of the masses and purchase protection for their misdeeds, essentially by bribing government bureaucrats.

However, the case of Dr. Hamburg, who was FDA commissioner from 2009 to 2015, is a particularly clear example of why government should be protecting us from Big Business—in this case, Big Pharma—and not the reverse.

Dr. Hamburg has worked in a number of government and think-tank posts. Her husband is Peter Fitzhugh Brown, “an artificial intelligence researcher and co-CEO and co-president of Renaissance Technologies LLC, a hedge fund sponsor that was one of the world’s first to employ quantitative trading,” according to The Wall Street Journal. He and Dr. Hamburg are co-defendants in Terry Aston, et al., v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., which was filed in U.S. District Court on January 19, 2016.

According to the complaint filed on behalf of the five plaintiffs, Dr. Hamburg was nominated to head the FDA “as a result of huge political and other gratuities” given to Hillary Clinton—who recommended her to Barack Hussein Obama—to the Clinton Family Foundation, and to Obama himself. It’s “the Chicago way.”

Once in office, Dr. Hamburg is alleged to have acted “illegally and outside the scope of her authority” to suppress information about serious adverse reactions to two pharmaceuticals, Levaquin and Zohydro. Consequently, the plaintiffs claim Dr. Hamburg, Brown, and Renaissance Technologies profited by millions of dollars from existing and subsequent investments in the manufacturers. They likewise failed to disclose Dr. Hamburg’s and Brown’s continuing conflict of interest due to ongoing Renaissance Technologies profit sharing in which Brown participated.

The plaintiffs further claim the manufacturers of Levaquin and Zohydro, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Alkermes respectively, profited from higher sales and were functionally protected against loss arising from the two drugs’ adverse side effects during Dr. Hamburg’s tenure. Dr. Hamburg apparently also appointed a number of J&J employees to key FDA boards.

Zohydro is essentially a concentrated, timed-release form of hydrocodone, a highly addictive opiate used for pain management, containing five to ten times more of the drug than Vicodin. Eleven of 13 members of the FDA’s advisory board opposed its public use, due to serious concerns about abuse and possible overdose, but Dr. Hamburg pushed through Zohydro’s approval nonetheless.


Levaquin is a powerful antibiotic of the fluoroquinolone class, similar to Cipro and Norfloxacin. It is known for significant and even severe side effects, especially for the elderly. A common problem is chronic inflammation and degeneration of the tendons, including sudden detachment of the Achilles tendon. At least 500 persons have died from Levaquin.

According to the lawsuit, “On November 5, 2015, after Defendant Hamburg had resigned, an FDA employee, Debra Boxwell, finally exposed . . . that Defendant Hamburg and the FDA had been aware that Levaquin may result in multi-system disability since 2013, but that it . . . instead conspired with the other Defendants to fraudulently withhold [the information].” Following Dr. Hamburg’s departure, the FDA finally added further drug warnings.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

It seems this sort of corruption is standard fare at the FDA, where pharmaceutical and agricultural executives and toadies are appointed to police their former employers. Monsanto is one egregious example. Another is the new FDA commissioner, Robert Califf, who has longstanding, lucrative major ties to numerous pharmaceutical giants, including J&J.

The problems at the FDA are systemic and require radical change. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has become its unindicted co-conspirator. In a key recent case, five of nine justices voted to protect 80% of the pharmaceutical industry from lawsuits like Aston. Those lugubrious “illogicians” claimed that only original drug manufacturers can be held liable for medication side effects, not generic or other subsequent producers. The court claimed that, if the FDA says a drug is safe, then it is “safe”—whether or not it is true.

Big Pharma rejoiced at this new protection of their corruption. But ordinary Americans were left helpless before exploitation by the pill pushers and political prostitutes. Let us hope that Aston v. Johnson & Johnson will be a wake-up call for fundamental reform at the FDA.

Donate to us

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.

Carrageenan Making You Sick?

• Harmful food additive made from seaweed found in wide range of products.

By James Spounias —

Everyone has heard of the dangers of gluten, which is found in wheat, so much so that the “gluten-free” food marketplace has become a billion-dollar business, growing at a fast rate and estimated to be in the $4 billion to $7 billion range by 2020. Best-selling books in America warn of the dangers of gluten while some health advocates posit that Monsanto’s glyphosate, not wheat itself, may be the actual culprit for alleged gluten intolerance.

What remains under the radar is a commonly used, but little known, naturally occurring food substance from a specific species of red seaweed, known as carrageenan.

Carrageenan is found in many foods, especially “health foods,” and ironically can be labeled organic because it is approved by the National Organic Standards Board. It is used as a thickening and stabilizing agent and is found in processed foods, such as deli meats, dairy, and plant-based beverages, including beer and even infant formulas.

In a devastating report released on April 25, 2016, the Cornucopia Institute, a public health research organization, stated unequivocally that carrageenan may cause gastrointestinal distress, inflammation, cancer, and diabetes as well as other health problems.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The specific problem lies with low molecular weight poligeenan, a carcinogenic contaminant, which Cornucopia claims exists in all food-grade carrageenan.

The carrageenan industry alleges that carrageenan is distinct from poligeenan, but Cornucopia disagrees, citing publicly funded research.

“Now, the industry’s own data has revealed that all 12 food-grade carrageenan samples tested did in fact contain poligeenan in varying quantities up to 25%,” said Linley Dixon, Ph.D., one of Cornucopia’s senior staff scientists.

This writer has been told by emergency room (ER) personnel the most puzzling cases involve gastrointestinal disturbances.

One ER physician mused: “We run every test possible and find nothing wrong with the patient . . . even though they present symptoms of extreme distress. It’s fascinating.”

Reading the testimonials of people who suffered from ingesting carrageenan is shocking.

Kimberly DeLaroque of Warren, Manitoba, Canada said:

“Before I knew about carrageenan, I suffered tremendous stomach cramps, body aches and extreme bloating from eating certain foods, sandwich meat, ice cream, etc. My symptoms would last for a minimum of 24 hours, sometimes lasting for 48 hours. I had several exploratory procedures done to see if I had a blockage omewhere in my intestinal tract. I started to record a food journal and a list of ingredients of everything I ate, and suddenly discovered my symptoms were caused solely by carrageenan. Since eliminating carrageenan, I have had no problems with stomach cramps, body aches or extreme bloating. I am extremely careful not to ingest even the smallest amount, as it will cause me hours of suffering. I am extremely strict about the products I purchase, and after having researched the terrible effects of this awful ingredient, I have taken extra precautions that my four children do not ingest anything that contains carrageenan.”

This is what Jeff Pokorny of Bend, Oregon wrote:

“I learned that carrageenan was bad but was not yet aware of what the symptoms were from exposure. Upon learning that it affected the lower GI, and upon recognizing that my elimination of symptoms coincided with my elimination of carrageenan from my diet, it became clear that it was likely more than coincidence, that these symptoms were from carrageenan. My wife always wondered why I had diarrhea, and I just told her it was normal and that I’d always had it. She also wondered why I defecated so frequently (three to six times per day). Now I’m down to one to two [times per day]. Damn the corporations that put this junk in our food and passed it along as though it’s totally safe and ‘made from seaweed.’”

Kyla L. of Morgantown, West Virginia had this to say about carrageenan:

“I wrote extensive food journals for at least a year—what I ate, the ingredients, and the effects which occurred. There were several emergency room visits where I didn’t know what was wrong, and I needed fluids and sometimes medication because I couldn’t stop vomiting. It was painful, and I became severely dehydrated. I had several tests done including a barium upper GI and a gastrointestinal nuclear scan. Those tests came out okay, but the barium drink used for the x-rays had carrageenan, and I was vomiting profusely after ingestion (since I had to fast). It occurred pretty much as soon as the drink hit my small bowel. At the point of this test, I realized what had to be the cause of my GI distress—mostly due to the food journals commonality, but also that precise moment. Discovering this reaction was a long, horrible process and I felt like my own science experiment every time I ate. The episodes—which included pain, nonstop throwing up, sweats and chills—were intolerable. If I had not stopped ingesting carrageenan, I would have outrageous medical bills and be unable to eat without fear of such an episode.”


Finally, here is what Katie M. of St. Louis, Missouri said:

“I discovered that carrageenan caused my gastrointestinal symptoms after correlating my stomach upsets with the consumption of ice cream and prepared coffee shop drinks. Since I was not lactose intolerant, I started looking for common ingredients and noticed carrageenan in the ice cream, creamer, and coffee shop smoothies. When I removed things with carrageenan from my diet, there were no more problems. I no longer have irritable bowel syndrome flare-ups and am now able to do things I couldn’t do previously. Before, I was afraid to go on overnight camping trips, day canoeing trips, or Kendo seminars, because the pain would literally incapacitate me, and now it’s not an issue.”

Even some establishment medical figures are demanding action.

Dr. Stephen Hanauer, M.D., chief, section of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition, and Joseph B. Kirsner, professor of medicine and clinical pharmacology, University of Chicago School of Medicine wrote recently:

“The rising incidence and prevalence of ulcerative colitis across the globe is correlated with the increased consumption of processed foods, including products containing carrageenan. Since carrageenan has been found to cause colitis in animal models of ulcerative colitis we felt it would be important to perform a well-controlled dietary study to determine whether carrageenan causes exacerbations (flare ups) of ulcerative colitis in patients in clinical remission.”

The best advice for now is to read food labels carefully. Ask manufacturers if they use carrageenan, and, if they do, encourage them to use other thickening agents.

Most consumers may not have severe reactions to carrageenan, but research indicates it causes low-grade inflammation, which often brings more serious diseases later in life, according to Cornucopia.

Donate to us

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine and his wife, Carole. To receive a free issue of Carotec Health Report—a monthly newsletter loaded with well-researched and reliable alternative health information—please write Carotec, P.O. Box 9919, Naples, FL 34101 or call 1-800-522-4279. Also included will be a list of the high-quality health supplements Carotec recommends.

Obama Administration Forcing Transgender Access to Restrooms

By the Staff at AFP —

The battle for the bathroom is heating up.

Today, the Obama administration sent a letter to every public school district in the United States, warning that if they do not allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choosing, they “could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid,” reported Reuters.

The letter, which does not have the force of law, had been in the works for months, according to the Department of Justice (DoJ), and was signed by officials from the Departments of Education and Justice, and details “what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against,” reported The New York Times.

“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement.

“This guidance gives administrators, teachers, and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies,” she said.


The letter says “schools may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other document before treating them according to their gender identity.”

The letter comes as the Obama administration and North Carolina battle in federal court over a N.C. law passed in March that limits public bathroom access for transgender people, the first state in the country to ban people from using multiple occupancy restrooms or changing rooms in public buildings and schools that do not match the sex on their birth certificate.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

“Courts have not settled the question of whether the nation’s sex discrimination laws apply in matters of gender identity,” reported the Times. Emboldened by a federal appeals court ruling in Virginia last month, the administration thinks they have the upper hand. Just this week, the DoJ and N.C. sued each other over the law.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, Americans are ostensibly divided over this issue, “with 44% saying people should use them according to their biological sex and 39% saying they should be used according to the gender with which they identify.”

Donate to us

Alabama Judge Faces Removal Over Opposition to Gay Marriage

By the Staff at AFP —

Suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Stewart Moore has once again found himself in the crosshairs of the cultural Marxists determined to impose their anti-Christian, homosexual agenda on the rest of America.

Last Friday, six charges were filed by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission against Moore for his public opposition to homosexual marriage and his determination not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Alabama. The charges were filed with the Court of the Judiciary. Moore has 30 days to respond to the charges, at which point the Court of the Judiciary will respond to the complaints and either dismiss the case or, as was done in the past, discipline or even remove Moore from the bench.

In 2003, Moore caused controversy when he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery, the state capital, despite a federal court order to do so. Moore appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear his case. He was shortly thereafter removed from office as chief justice only to be reinstated in 2013.

Moore has the support of the majority of citizens and elected officials in his state. Alabama has a long history of opposition to homosexual marriage. In 1996, Alabama Governor Forrest Hood “Fob” James, Jr. issued an executive order outlawing homosexual marriage as well as the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Two years later, both houses of the Alabama legislature voted overwhelmingly to ban homosexual marriage in the state, and the bill was signed into law. In 2006, the Alabama legislature once again voted overwhelmingly in favor of Amendment 774, which amended the state constitution banning homosexual marriage. The constitutional amendment was later endorsed by 81% of Alabama voters.


In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage licenses and rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, thus paving the way for homosexual marriage to be imposed on all states, including Alabama. In response, many counties in Alabama have refused to issue marriage licenses and certificates to anyone.

The recent complaints leveled against Moore come at the behest of the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which has targeted the honorable chief justice in the past. Ambrosia Starling, a deranged drag queen, has also made a public spectacle of the situation, organizing a rally and protest against Moore in January on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court building. Moore has publicly called out Starling on multiple occasions recently, and stated that drag queens, transgendered individuals, and homosexuals would have been classified as having a mental disorder in the past.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

As this newspaper recently reported, the federal government is increasing its efforts to impose its anti-Christian, homosexual agenda all across America, despite opposition from local and state governments.

The U.S. Justice Department has sued the state of North Carolina over a state law recently passed prohibiting individuals from utilizing bathrooms not corresponding to their biological sex. The federal government has argued that the state law violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and apparently believes gender is a social construct rather than a biological reality.

The cultural Marxist madness being imposed on America shows no signs of abating.


Click here to take a quick poll to tell us whether you side with Moore or the cultural Marxists.

Donate to us