Hidden Toxins in Everyday Products Should Be Disclosed

• Chemical manufacturers who make pesticides routinely add ingredients to their witch’s brews of toxins, but because they label them “inert”meaning the substances are not an active part of the formulafederal regulators do not require that they be listed on the bottle.

• Due to concerns that over-the-counter bug sprays could be filling homes and businesses with all kinds of cancer-causing agents, activists are calling on the federal government and pesticide makers to disclose everything that is inside their products.

By James Spounias

Did you know that pesticide chemical makers do not have to disclose dangerous chemicals in their products if they are considered “inert”? For years, activists have tried to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by attempting to influence its rule-making authority, to require pesticide manufacturers to disclose such hazardous ingredients.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

After years of not succeeding by working through the agency’s own process, attorney Yana Garcia filed suit against the EPA on behalf of public interest groups Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, arguing it failed to protect citizens from harmful inert ingredients.


However, on June 8, 2016, United States Northern District of California Judge William H. Orrick ruled against the plaintiffs stating, “The EPA has no mandatory duty to require disclosure of ‘inert’ ingredients in pesticides, even if those ingredients qualify as hazardous chemicals under separate statutes.” Orrick stated that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act states that the EPA “may require” disclosure of inert ingredients and has wide leeway to decide whether manufacturers have to reveal these ingredients.  What this means is that pesticide manufacturers don’t have to tell us what is in their products, even though pest-killing products are regulated by the federal government. Moreover, we can’t count on the judiciary branch to protect us, at least in this case.

Garcia stated, “It defies logic that chemicals EPA finds to cause cancer and permanent neurological conditions would meet this standard. . . .  EPA has been dragging its feet for decades.” The definition of what is “inert” may have been the work of the pesticide lobby, rather than common sense, because inert doesn’t mean the ingredient is harmless. Rather, an inert ingredient is deemed to be any ingredient that is not “active” or targeted to kill a pest.


Get This Deal Button

A New York state attorney general report in 2000 found that 72% of pesticide products for consumers contain more than 95% inert ingredients and fewer than 10% of pesticide products list any inert ingredients on their labels. The report also found that more than 2,000 inert ingredients are known to be “toxic,” “potentially toxic,” and “unknown toxic.” Some inert ingredients are listed as inert in some products and as active ingredients in other products. Additionally, some toxic ingredients may be more toxic than active ingredients.  For instance, the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine found in Monsanto’s Roundup is classified as inert, but is known to possibly kill human cells.

Given the high number of people suffering from cancer and neurological diseases, supposedly without any concrete cause, continuing to allow pesticide manufactures to not only use but not even label toxic ingredients in their products is a failure of business, regulatory agencies, and the judiciary.

On July 25, this writer asked Ms. Garcia if she is planning to appeal the decision. She replied that her clients are still considering various options.

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.

Violent Radicals Criminally Charged

• Thugs may face trial for serious assault on peaceful political demonstrators.

By John Friend —

In a major victory for the rule of law in America, seven individuals were recently charged with misdemeanor assault, battery or resisting arrest by the Orange County district attorney for their participation in an attack on Ku Klux Klan members legally demonstrating in Anaheim on February 28. An eighth suspect who was seen kicking a Klansman at the rally is still at large and awaiting prosecution.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

A small group of Klan members organized a rally at Pearson Park in Anaheim earlier this year in an effort to raise awareness about black-on-white violence and related issues. The “White Lives Matter” rally, as it was described by the organizers, shocked radical leftists in the area, especially as it was organized by members of the Klan. When news of the rally spread, dozens of counter-protesters arrived at the park to confront the Klansmen. Unsurprisingly, many of the counter-protesters immediately began physically attacking Klan members as soon as they arrived, around mid-day.

Klansmen were kicked, punched, and attacked by counter-protesters, and a series of brawls erupted, spanning roughly one city block. Three counter-protesters were stabbed by Klansmen in self-defense. Five Klan members were arrested after police arrived on the scene but were eventually released, as it was evident they were responding to violent attacks and did not initiate the violence.

“This case is not about who was holding the protest rally, their racist message, or who was counter protesting. This is about the mob mentality turning violent, which shut down neighboring streets, access to the park, and endangered the community as a whole,” Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said in a statement released shortly after charges were filed. “Our office does not condone any message of hate, mob violence, or vigilante justice.”

As political violence against Trump supporters and other politically incorrect groups escalates across America, the charges filed in Anaheim are an extremely welcoming development for Americans concerned with law and order and the First Amendment. As this newspaper has reported in recent editions, radical anti-Trump protesters have violently confronted and attacked supporters of the presumptive GOP nominee for president at rallies and events all over the country. Following a particularly violent and chaotic Trump rally in San Jose earlier this summer, at least four anti-Trump protesters were arrested for their actions at the rally, including three on felony assault with a deadly weapon charges.

In one of the most violent and chaotic events of this year, counter-protesters organized primarily by radical leftist group BAMN—an acronym for By Any Means Necessary—violently assaulted members of the Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP) who had organized a legal rally in Sacramento at the state capitol building on June 26. Ironically, the rally was specifically organized to protest political violence perpetrated against Trump supporters and other violent assaults on the First Amendment, according to Matthew Heimbach, the chairman of the TWP, who spoke to AFP in an exclusive interview.

“The purpose of the Traditionalist Worker Party rally in Sacramento was to bring attention to the radical left’s attacks on freedom of speech and assembly for nationalists all around America,” Heimbach told AMERICAN FREE PRESS. “We were working to convey that leftist agitators would not silence or intimidate us.”


The radical leftist counter-protesters—who numbered in the hundreds, according to local on-the-scene reports—immediately began violently confronting and attacking members of the TWP as soon as they arrived at the state capitol building. Incredibly, law enforcement officers on the scene did almost nothing to prevent the attacks, and no arrests were made. One TWP member was stabbed, while at least six counter-protesters were stabbed during the melee. Pressure has been put on local law enforcement officials in Sacramento to enforce the rule of law and bring charges against those responsible for the violence and destruction. However, as AFP goes to press, no charges have been filed.

“We expected the left to use violence to attempt to silence us, but the amount of weaponry they brought was surprising and shows a clear escalation of violence and of political desperation by the radical left,” Heimbach explained to AFP.

As the highly charged election season carries on, there can be little doubt that political violence carried out by the radical left in America, which is largely encouraged and promoted by the controlled mass media, will only increase. Nationalism is on the rise, according to Heimbach, and the radical left is getting desperate as their leaders and elite financiers recognize their time is running out.

“The left is being driven to more violence by the realization that their stranglehold on America and the Western media and politics is disappearing,” Heimbach concluded. “People are awakening across America to the lies of the radical left and turning toward nationalism. This political shift is driving the left to become more violent as a way to attempt to keep control. They are terrorists who have no desire to honor the principles of freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, and they should continue to be exposed for whom they really are.”

Donate to us

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

People Rising Up Against the New World Order

• Resurgence of nationalism across globe could herald new era of freedom.

By Ronald L. Ray —

For 100 years and more, the political elites and secret string-pullers of government were happy to have the intellectually myopic masses of the doltocracy voting and marching behind them into the New World Order (NWO). But no more.

In country after country, the populace is awakening to the elites’ open assault on traditions, history, and values—upon Western civilization. Leading the advance toward tyranny, the chattering classes of corrupt politicians and simpering, servile pundits felt confident of their strength. But faced with the peaceful anger of nationalists and populists, our “betters” have decided democratic voting isn’t so swell.

For centuries, the culture destroyers have chipped away at the foundations of Christian and white civilization. They have used and abused us at every level. Now that a significant number of people are awake to the reality in America and abroad and seek to break the cycle of abuse, the internationalist cabals have panicked and become increasingly extreme—and just plain nutty—in their efforts to maintain control.

James Traub is a contributing editor of Foreign Policy and member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Following the Brexit vote, Traub penned a commentary for Foreign Policy titled, “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses.” This cultural communist wants the phony “right” and “left,” which internationalists created for purposes of controlled opposition, to rejoin as “the sane vs. the mindlessly angry” and “to form a different kind of center, defending pragmatism, meliorism, technical knowledge, and effective governance.” Blah, blah, blah.

That’s right. You are a mindless animal to the plutocratic poohbahs. How dare you reject the wonderful, beneficent improvements brought by multicultural “diversity,” total globalization, loss of national identity, cultural and moral decay, and the impoverishment of the middle and working classes. You are, says Traub, “ignorant.”

Despite the huge numbers of young people seeking a return to tradition and the values that built Western civilization, Traub pushes the Big Lie that opponents of the NWO are just elderly whites angry at losing their comfortable past. Far from recognizing reality, he tries to create a false one. Yet, with faulty logic, he still wants nationalists to join up with the destructive globalist forces they oppose. Huh?

Across the Big Puddle, the nattering Belgian nabob, David Van Reybrouck, asserts, in a translation provided by The Guardian, that Brexit proves popular elections are dangerous to modern “democracy.” So long as people were apathetic but trusted the traitorous politicians, elections were great, he writes.

The Definitive Book on the New World Order!


$9 OFF!

Get This Deal Button

Now that they want to throw off the twin yokes of banksterism and bureaucratic globalism, popular “passion and distrust” must be deprived of a political voice. Citibank warns that likely referenda in Italy, Hungary, and elsewhere are highly “risky.”

Van Reybrouck shrieks that Brexit was unprecedented and allegedly destabilizing. So many laws will have to be changed, he frets. Forgetting the powerful, positive effects of popular referenda in 1930s Germany, Van Reybrouck wants to end all popular elections. Instead, tiny, “randomly selected,” tightly controlled and carefully propagandized focus groups would be permitted to advise the bureaucratic bullies and “vote” for the latest NWO nonsense.

Freedom’s “death by committee” would thereby be ensured. This is not just a European Union event, either. It is also well under way in the United States, as unelected regional planning councils—think “commissariats”—and “intergovernmental cooperation” committees are handed increasing control over the functions of governance. Trotskyite tyranny is what Van Reybrouck really wants.


Andy Serwer, Yahoo Inc.’s finance editor-in-chief, concurs. “We’re suffering the consequences of too much democracy,” he whines. Popular referenda, which 26 U.S. states permit, upset the financial pharaohs and loosened their stranglehold on the masses. At state and national levels, this is insufferable, he whimpers. Rather, we should just trust the politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers. They are the “experts,” apparently by the mere fact that we elected the politicians.

The NWO has been flanked by those it thought it controlled and is in momentary disarray before the nationalists and populists on two continents. The Establishment must not be permitted to rest or entrench.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Kissingers of the world—armchair generals all—hate us, our history, and our culture. They would enslave us or destroy us—no matter which.

Friends, it is you, your children, your homes, your religious faith and personal freedom, your nation and civilization that the internationalists despise and would subject to their diabolical dominion. They will not stop, so we must not.

Our battle cry must be “Pro aris et focis”—“For altars and hearths!” For God, country, and family! Raise the black flag. No retreat. No surrender. No quarter to the enemies of our Christian, European-American civilization. Victory lies not in the comfort of the present day. Ahead to victory.

As Thomas Paine wrote, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

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.

ISIS Turns on Turkey

• Istanbul airport attack is likely payback for lapse in loyalty.

By Richard Walker —

The June 29 massacre of 44 travelers and staff at the Istanbul airport is blowback for Turkey arming and training terror groups like Islamic State (ISIS), al Qaeda, and al-Nusra to fight its proxy wars in Syria and Iraq.

For decades, Turkey’s all-powerful intelligence service, MİT, or National Intelligence Organization, has been running operations with terrorists. Sometimes it has colluded with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, and the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE).

As far back as the 1970s, the CIA and MİT used the Turkish terror group the Grey Wolves for black ops in the Middle East and Europe. Ali Agca, a member of the Grey Wolves, shot Pope John Paul II in 1981 in St. Peter’s Square.

In the past couple of years, MİT, along with Western and Arab intelligence agencies, has been recruiting and arming terrorists to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

It is very much like the situation decades ago when the CIA used the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets there. As we now know, Osama bin Laden and many of his fellow fighters turned on their United States benefactors and were pulled into an international conspiracy that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans on September 11, 2001.

The lesson of history is that while intelligence agencies like the Mossad, the CIA and MİT expect the terrorists they support to do their bidding, the terrorists demand unquestioned loyalty in return. When loyalty fades there is payback.

In the past year, Turkey has been under increasing pressure from North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to sever its links to ISIS and its affiliates, and has been guaranteed billions of dollars and possible European Union membership for closing its border with Syria.

As Turkey began to turn on its evil pals, it was soon reminded by ISIS that such treachery has a price.

The Istanbul airport bombing was just one example of payback from ISIS and followed several bombings by the groups in Turkey this year.

There is a fascinating backstory to the Istanbul attack. The three bombers who blew themselves up in the airport were part of a larger cell, based in Istanbul. Its members had been trained in Syria by Ahmed “One-Arm” Chatayev, a Chechen from the Caucuses who has been on a Russian terror watch list since 2003.

Chechnya has terror ties to Dagestan, the birthplace of the Tsarnaev brothers who allegedly bombed the Boston Marathon.

Russia has been battling an Islamic insurgency in the Caucasus for decades. It is a region between the Black and Caspian seas with large Islamic communities, separated by the Caucasus Mountain range. When Russia began to warn the West about the flow of thousands of veteran terrorists from there to the Middle East, the West showed little concern because, along with Turkey and a few Arab states, it was busy training terrorists to force regime change in Syria under the guise of a “Free Syrian Army.” Foreign fighters were always welcome in its ranks.

The CIA and DGSE, however, concentrated their efforts on buying the loyalty of al Qaeda fighters they had used in Libya to overthrow Colonel Muammar Qadaffi. They transported these terrorists to Turkey and Jordan and then into Syria.

Since Turkey bordered the Caucasus, it used its MİT agents to bring the best Chechen fighters to Turkey to train other foreign fighters. One was the veteran “One-Arm” Chatayev who set up a terror training compound in Syria. He taught terrorists how to make and use suicide vests.

This year, the ISIS leadership called on him to teach Turkey a lesson since he knew Istanbul well, having spent time in the city when he was first recruited by the Turks. He had also done business in Turkey during his years as a mobster.


In February 2016, Russia provided the United Nations Security Council with evidence of Turkey’s alliance with terrorists and how it was transporting terrorists from the Caucasus and Central Asia to fight with ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria and Yemen. According to Russia, Turkey at one stage moved 1,000 fighters into Syria.

Turkey’s meddling in the crises in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq has been carried out in conjunction with several Arab states. The CIA has maintained close links with all these states, even ignoring the fact that they have financed terror, costing the lives of thousands of Americans.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The CIA has refused to condemn the Turks because the U.S. spy agency has, for decades, promoted a failed policy of supporting violent, radical sects of Sunni Muslims.

History has shown that this only makes sense if you are willing to turn a blind eye to global terror that leads to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

A security source has confirmed that the Istanbul bomber mastermind, Chatayev, was arrested in the Bulgarian town of Plovdiv in 2011. Interpol had a warrant for him based on the fact he was on a Russian terror watch list. According to the source, Bulgaria, under pressure from U.S. authorities, was told to release him because he was a Chechen fighting Russia. He fled to Austria where he was given residency and then to Afghanistan. Later he was recruited by the Turks to fight in Syria.

Donate to us

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

The U.S. Congress: GMO Sellouts

• Congress overrules state voters on food labeling.

By James Spounias —

AMERICAN FREE PRESS has extensively covered the movement to have genetically modified organisms (GMOs) labeled. In the past few years, a number of states around the United States have made advances in identifying for consumers the GMOs that are in our food supply, but now progress on that effort appears to have suffered a significant setback.

The grassroots effort to legally require the labeling of GMOs may have been lost on July 7 when the Senate moved the House version of the “Safe Food Labeling Act” forward in a 65-32 vote.

Senator Charles Patrick “Pat” Roberts (R-Kan.) introduced in the Senate a version of the bill similar to Kansas Republican Representative Michael Richard Pompeo’s “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” which was passed by the House of Representatives, 275 to 150, on July 23, 2015.

Roberts joined Senator Deborah Ann “Debbie” Greer Stabenow (D-Mich.) in a compromise effort that ensured passage of the so-called DARK Act, now referred to as the Stabenow-Roberts compromise.

Activists who oppose Pompeo’s bill named it the DARK Act because, when it comes to knowing what’s in our foods, the bill could more accurately be called the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act. Activists shot down previous legislative efforts and sneak attempts, but now the Stabenow-Roberts compromise will likely become law.

The compromise will be returned to the House of Representatives, where it could be changed, though it is unlikely meaningful revisions will be made that would fix the Senate version to satisfy the concerns of health-conscious Americans.

As of July 11, Speaker of the House Paul Davis Ryan (Wisc.) informed activists the compromise is being marked up, meaning it will likely be pushed through the House for passage and then sent to President Barack Hussein Obama for signature.


In 2014, Vermont passed GMO-labeling requirements, giving manufacturers two years to comply. That law took effect on July 1, 2016.

The powerful Grocery Manufacturers Association sued in Vermont to have the law invalidated, but a judge ruled against them, upholding the labeling law.

The Stabenow-Roberts compromise preempts state law, rendering powerless state laws on the issue of mandatory labeling. Curiously, many Republican senators who talk a good game about the importance of freedom and states rights voted to preempt Vermont law.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Senators Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Antonio Rubio (R-Fla.), both Republican presidential contenders, pontificated on the forgotten 10th Amendment during their campaigns and in debates, but supported the compromise, which overrides the wishes of Vermont citizens.

Vermont activists were outraged at the Senate’s vote.

Andrea Stander, executive director of Rural Vermont, stated:

“Every Vermonter, and every American who cares about the food they eat and the democracy they live in, should be outraged by what the U.S. Senate just did. This bill is a corporate giveaway masquerading as a GMO labeling ‘compromise.’ Senate leadership has chosen corporate lobbyists over the 90% of Americans who support labeling. Without a single committee hearing, and allowing for no amendments, they’ve passed a bill so riddled with loopholes and delays, so unenforceable, that even the FDA has argued it may not lead to a single product being labeled. They should be ashamed.”

Food and biotech behemoths spent roughly $100 million in 2015 alone to oppose labeling efforts in California, Colorado, and Oregon where citizen petitions were shot down by intentionally confusing political counter-attacks. Vermont’s success could have easily been a model for other states.

How did the DARK Act compromise receive 63 Senate votes to move forward when it had previously failed to advance?

Some plucky organic grassroots activists alleged that “organic” titans sold out.

Grassroots community Food Democracy Now! wrote on June 29:

“The American GMO labeling movement has been rocked by the most outrageous betrayal imaginable. While you and your friends have been fighting for mandatory GMO labeling, the giant corporate organic companies that are owned by parent companies have just climbed into bed with Monsanto and stuck a knife in the back of every American who’s ever fought for GMO labeling.”


The article continued:

“After years of using [the nonprofit organization] Just Label It as a corporate front group to undermine real grassroots campaigns, GMO labeling ballot initiatives and people like you, Gary Hirshberg and Just Label It are finally showing their true colors and working publicly to make it easier for corrupt senators to vote for this toxic backroom deal that will undermine every American mother’s basic right to know what’s in the food they’re feeding their children, like mothers in 64 other countries around the world already possess.”

Hirshberg, founder of Just Label It! and chairman of Stonyfield Farm, was alleged to have worked too comfortably with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, former Biotechnology Industry Organization’s “Governor of the Year,” when he issued this statement on June 23: “We are pleased this proposal will finally create a national, mandatory GMO disclosure system, protects organic labels, and will cover more food than Vermont’s groundbreaking GMO labeling law. . . .”

Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association calls Hirshberg and Walter Robb, CEO of Whole Foods Market, “organic traitors.”


Cummins wrote on June 29:

“These self-selected ‘good food’ and ‘organic’ leaders have been telling Congress behind closed doors—and now publicly—that they and the organic community will accept an industry-crafted DARK Act ‘compromise’—the Stabenow-Roberts bill—that eliminates mandatory GMO labeling and preempts the Vermont law with a convoluted and deceptive federal regime for QR codes and 1-800 numbers that is completely voluntary, with no firm guidelines for implementation, and no provisions whatsoever for enforcement. Perhaps even more outrageous, the legal definition of ‘bioengineered’ foods under the new DARK Act means that 95% of the current GMO-tainted foods on the market, including foods made from Roundupresistant and BT-spliced corn and soy, would never have to be identified.”

QR codes refer to the little black-and-white images that store data on corporations or products, which mobile phones can read.

Cummins cautioned, “Routinely contained in every bite or swallow of non-organic industrial food are genetically engineered ingredients, pesticides, antibiotics and other animal drug residues, pathogens, feces, hormone-disrupting chemicals, toxic sludge, slaughterhouse waste, chemical additives and preservatives, and a host of other hazardous allergens and toxins.”

While the battle in the Senate may be lost, we can still tell our representatives in the House we do not want the DARK Act compromise.

Ideally, GMOs would have been banned outright. It speaks to our American corporatist system that we, as Americans, aren’t even allowed rudimentary labeling of GMOs, which many first-world Europeans and others have.

Americans may have no choice but to grow and source locally known foods, free of Frankenfoods and chemical assault.

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.

Will the West Survive This Century?

• White Europeans, Euro-Americans, Japanese need to reverse demographic trends.

By Patrick J. Buchanan —

“Nativism . . .  xenophobia or worse” is behind the triumph of Brexit and the support for Donald Trump, railed President Barack Obama in Ottawa recently. Obama believes that resistance to transformational change in the character and identity of countries of the West, from immigration, can only be the product of sick minds or sick hearts.

According to The New York Times, he will spend the last months of his presidency battling “the nativism and nationalism” of Trump and “Britain’s Brexiteers.”

Prediction: Obama will fail. For rising ethnonationalism and militarization of frontiers is baked in the cake, if the West wishes to remain the West.

Behind that prediction lie the startling figures of the UN’s “World Population 2015” chart, which just arrived.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Consider but a few of those figures.

• Between now and 2050, Europe will lose 32 million people. Not one European nation has a fertility rate—2.1 children per woman—sufficient to keep it alive. A quarter of all Europeans are 60 or older.

• The tribes that created the West are passing away.

Contrast Europe with Africa, just across the Mediterranean.

• Between now and 2050, Africa will add 1.3 billion people, to reach 2.4 billion in 2050. Then its population will double again, to 4.4 billion, by 2100.

• Only 5% of Africans are 60 or older, while 41% of Africans are 15 or younger.

Given the tyranny, destitution, and disease that afflict Africa, what—other than barriers, border guards, and warships—is there to stop tens of millions of young African men from crossing over in coming decades to fill the empty spaces left by dying Europeans?

The Arab-Muslim population of North Africa alone, from the western Sahara and Morocco to Egypt and Sudan, will add 130 million people in 35 years. Egypt will add 60 million, to reach a population of 151 million by 2050.

Yet Egypt will still have only the fifth-highest population of Muslims, behind Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India.

While impossible to find a Western country with a fertility rate that will prevent its nativeborn people from dying off, it is difficult to find a Muslim country that does not boast a rising or exploding population.



Get This Deal Button

If the future belongs to the young, it belongs to Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans, and it belongs to Islam.

Eastern Europe presents the grimmest picture in Europe. Between now and 2050, Poland will lose 5 million people, Ukraine almost 10 million, and Russia 15 million. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia will see one-sixth of their combined population disappear. Such losses are comparable to those of World War II.

In percentage terms, Ukraine will suffer most. By midcentury, its population will have shrunk by 21% to 35 million. Is this not a graver matter than whose flag flies over Crimea?

The bleakest prospects belong to Japan, home to some of the most capable, industrious, and advanced people on Earth.

Between now and 2050, Japan will lose 19 million people and see its population fall to 107 million. A third of the nation is already 60 or older. Only 1 in 7 Japanese are under 16.

The people of Japan are the oldest on Earth. In coming decades, a large slice of Japan’s population will be working to support healthcare, pensions, and welfare for the aged, infirm, and dying.


And the United States? With Mexico and Central America adding 56 million people in 35 years, either the U.S. secures its southern border or the 11-12 million immigrants here illegally will have millions of new compatriots.

America is already evolving into another country. Though the U.S. is projected to grow by 67 million people in 35 years, this growth will be wholly among Hispanics, Asians, and African-Americans. In each of the past four years, non-Hispanic white Americans have registered more deaths than births.

Between July 2014 and July 2015, the Asian-American population grew by 3.4%, and the Hispanic population grew 2.2%. The black population was up 1.3%. But the white population grew by only 0.1%.

White America has begun to die. Can Obamareally believe that amnesty for undocumented immigrants is still in the cards with a Republican Congress scorched by the forces behind Trump?

Can he believe that the right-wing parties proliferating across Europe, which see their nations imperiled by a rising tide of Muslim immigrants and refugees, will pack it in and support the EU’s march to a transnational superstate that controls immigration and borders?

What has been tabled for discussion this year, in Europe and America, is the future of the West as an identifiable civilization to be cherished and defended by the peoples whose ancestors created it.

And Obama’s reverence for Islam notwithstanding, the West remains the greatest civilization of them all.

Belatedly, Western Man appears to have decided to defend the shire, pull up the drawbridge, and man the parapets on the castle walls.

As for Trumpism and the Brexiteers, Mr. President, in the words of Jimmy Durante, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Donate to us

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

Hillary’s Emails and Mideast Policy; Not Even a Slap

• Israeli hegemony, rejection of diplomatic efforts are core planks of her policies.

By Ronald L. Ray —

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the unreformed socialist extremist, is also—oddly enough—the Trotskyite neoconservatives’ dream candidate for president of the United States. Despite Republican candidate Donald J. Trump’s immense popularity, it is advisable, in light of America’s recent history of rigged elections, to take a closer look at Queen Clinton’s dangerous foreign policy views, particularly as they relate to the grave situation of Syria, the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists, and the entire Middle East region.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to any of the questions AMERICAN FREE PRESS submitted to Hillary, but we were able nevertheless to dig up the truth about her warmongering ways and the deadly threat they pose to the world. Just the few things Mrs. Clinton admits on her campaign website should scare off anyone with common sense. While her slogans sound nice, the details are disturbing.

Most alarming is Mrs. Clinton’s confrontational stance against nuclear-armed Russia and China. She calls China’s actions in the Pacific “aggressive” and claims she will “confine, contain, and deter Russian aggressions in Europe and beyond,” hardly the words of a diplomat attempting to engender international cooperation. And with both countries key allies of Syria and Iran, Mrs. Clinton’s belligerent stance could easily provoke the mutually assured nuclear destruction the neocons crave.

The Democratic candidate claims she wants to “defeat” ISIS and terrorism generally, along with “the ideologies that drive it,” but “without miring our troops in another misguided ground war.” Because no war is won without ground troops, that means the necessity of using proxies and mercenaries, so nothing will change, but war profits will soar.

Additionally, “never allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon,” which that country is not seeking in any event, means an ongoing search for an excuse to bomb the Persians back into the Stone Age.

Hillary further claims that the “special alliance” with Israel is one of “the essential partnerships that are a unique source of America’s strength.” This is demented. But it is also the cornerstone of Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy: All for Israel; Israel ueber alles.



Get This Deal Button

In a Clinton email released by WikiLeaks, apparently written in 2012, Hillary’s entire rationale is laid bare for trying to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—who is incredibly popular with his own people—while bringing untold misery to millions of innocent Syrians. It is, again, all for Israel, to achieve Israel’s imperialistic “security” goals. “What Israeli military leaders really worry about—but cannot talk about—is losing their nuclear monopoly,” wrote Mrs. Clinton.

So in order to maintain Israel’s rogue nuclear status, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which the U.S. ratified, Mrs. Clinton continues, to promote a bloody coup in Syria using terrorist thugs—and not because Syria poses a direct threat to either the U.S. or Israel.

Rather, Mrs. Clinton writes: “It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security—not through a direct attack, which in the 30 years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed, and trained by Iran via Syria . . . . The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance.”

Hillary the armchair Armageddonist thus admits that Iran is similarly no real threat. But in order to make regional “peace” on Israeli terms, Mrs. Clinton would wage ongoing war, even though it could easily provoke a catastrophic world war with Russia, China, and Iran.

What allies does the U.S. have in such a Mideast situation? A handful of nations we literally destroyed and the sociopathic, genocidal Zionists occupying Palestine. Oh, yes—and the Saudis and Qataris.

Given the Clintonista-controlled platform committee’s actions in preparation for the Democratic National Convention, and the broadside published by 51 war hawks at the formerly Clinton-run State Department calling for a direct hot war with Syria—not to mention the Clinton campaign’s own propaganda—it is clear that Hillary is a sycophantic, hardline Zionist extremist entirely in thrall to demands of a tiny but shrill Jewish minority.

She is committed totally to further illegal, immoral expenditure of American blood and treasure in proxy wars for Israel, despite the consequent high likelihood of war with Russia, China, and Iran, who are committed to the defense of the democratically elected, sovereign government in Syria.

In remarks at the November 30, 2012 Saban Forum, Mrs. Clinton stated, “America and Israel are in it together. . . . What threatens Israel threatens America, and what strengthens Israel strengthens us.” This bizarre identification of U.S. interests with those of the racist, terrorist, genocidal, rogue nuclear Zionists occupying Palestine is criminal—and psychotic.

Rather than diplomatic solutions to problems, a Clinton presidency would guarantee that America—Israel’s vassal—expands its evil, imperialistic wars against peaceful, sovereign nations, creating more hatred for our country and the distinct probability that nuclear bombs and missiles will detonate over millions of U.S. homes.

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.

There’s a Lot More in the Clintons’ Closet

• She may have gotten away with the emails, but author says there is much worse lurking

By Victor Thorn

In fair and honest political and judicial systems, Hillary Clinton would be sitting behind bars right now. But after escaping another scandal—this one involving the use of multiple private email servers to handle official secret communications during her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary may instead be occupying the White House next January.

In reaction to the July 5 announcement by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James B. Comey Jr. that the FBI would not recommend formal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton, AMERICAN FREE PRESS interviewed Dr. Adrian Krieg, author of over a dozen published books on culture and politics.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Only hours after it became clear that the fix was in for Mrs. Clinton, Krieg stated: “The United States has become a third-world banana republic. The ruling on Hillary is unbelievable. The fact that she’s guilty cannot be denied. This country is no longer a representative republic. With the advent of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it’s completely over the top.”

Krieg had more to say on this matter.

“A Hillary presidency on top of the most catastrophic administration in this nation’s history would bring America to a state where recovery would no longer be a viable option,” he said. “After eight years of Obama, and at least four more under Hillary, there would be no more America left. People should really think about what the outcome would be after 12 years of this fiasco.”

Softcover, 118 pages

Buy Book Button

Krieg continued: “Hillary has already promised that, if elected, she’d perpetuate Obama’s last eight years. If another progressive is successful in reaching the White House, it’ll be impossible to bring America back. Hillary will change things so drastically that she’ll attempt to eliminate the NRA and Second Amendment. She’ll also implement a national single-payer socialized healthcare system, while perpetuating Obama’s policies of putting coal miners out of business. Obama and Hillary both seek a socialist country.”

A look back at past policies gives some insight into what America’s future would look like under Hillary.

“Bill Clinton started all the NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] free-trade nonsense that destroyed our workforce, and now Hillary wants to put him in charge of the economy,” she said. “Since NAFTA, America has lost 54,000 manufacturing companies, along with 11.7 million manufacturing jobs.”

Worse, Krieg outlined how a Hillary presidency would plunge us even deeper into illegality.

“Politics is a crooked game, but the Clintons have reached hallmark levels in serious criminality, including murder and intimidation,” he said. “Mainstream media investigators need to look more seriously at all the drugs that were flown into Mena airport in Arkansas. These were CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] operations, and Bill and Hillary were certainly involved.”

And that is not all when it comes to the Clintons’ criminal activity.

“If we look to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), it makes Hillary’s email problems look minor league,” he said. “CGI is the biggest money laundering scheme ever developed. As secretary of state, she visited countries like China, Canada, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Shortly thereafter, her husband gave speeches in these same places for $250,000 to $500,000.”

Overall, Krieg spelled out the inherent dangers of this situation: “The Clintons engaged in influence peddling, with so-called contributions going to CGI. We can’t even begin to guess how many favors they still owe to these countries and their leaders. If elected, CGI will become the world’s richest foundation. Bill and Hillary only care about one thing, and that’s obtaining more power.”

Victor Thorn

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


Not Even a Slap for Hillary Clinton

• Take a look at what happened to these men for “mishandling” secret docs

By Shane Smith

In the unlikely event we needed a reminder that the political class is above the law, Americans got it in bold, flashing letters when Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James B. Comey Jr. announced on July 5 that he would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her criminally reckless mishandling of classified information.

It should really come as no surprise that Hillary walked, despite the severity of the charges. She’s a beloved scion of our vaunted political class. A jet-setting, warmongering, heir apparent to the U.S. war machine, she can’t be bothered with a handful of charges that she believes don’t apply to her. But while Hillary gets off scot-free even after all the evidence is piled up against her, others are not so lucky.

For example, Obama’s war on whistleblowers, who have been sent to prison for mishandling classified information, has been well documented. Despite his claim that his administration has been the most transparent in history, more whistleblowers have been prosecuted by Obama than at any other time in history.

According to fact-checking watchdog organization PolitiFact.com, Obama has used the Espionage Act more than all previous administrations combined.

By the time Edward Snowden was charged for his massive leak of classified information, the Espionage Act had been used by the Obama administration against a government worker six times already. That number has now risen to eight. To put it in perspective, the Espionage Act has been used 12 times total, ever, going all the way back to 1945.

It makes one wonder just who Obama believes these whistleblowers are spying for. Does he consider the American people an enemy nation? And what of the other seven charged with the 100-year-old act?


Here is a brief look at the whistleblowers prosecuted under the Espionage Act by Obama.


Thomas Drake, a former senior National Security gency (NSA) official, was indicted in 2010 for retaining classified information about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping. The FBI believed Drake to have been the source for a New York Times story that revealed to the public the existence of such a program. In exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of “mishandling government information,” the 10 felony counts against him were dropped.


John Kiriakou blew the whistle on the extent of torture that the U.S. employed overseas. Kiriakou also leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer, and for that, he received 30 months in prison. A letter signed by multiple members of the intelligence community urged President Obama to commute Kiriakou’s sentence, but the plea was denied.


James Hitselberger, a former Navy linguist contractor, was charged under the Espionage Act after it was found he retained classified information and sent some of it to Stanford University’s archives. Though it has not been revealed why he did this, Hitselberger ultimately pleaded guilty to several minor charges and the espionage charge was dropped.


Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA employee, was the alleged source for New York Times reporter James Risen, who wrote extensively about Iran’s nuclear program and the deal Western powers were making with the Persian country. Sterling faces six charges under the Espionage Act, which could lead to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.


Bradley Manning was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for the largest leak in U.S. history prior to Snowden’s massive data dump. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison following his conviction, and later said he leaked the information because he loves his country and wanted to counter lies being spread about U.S. operations in Iraq.


Kim, a former State Department contractor, was charged with disclosing national defense information to Fox News reporter James Rosen. He pled guilty in 2014 and received a 13-month prison term.


Shamai Leibowitz, a former FBI Hebrew-English translator, was charged with disclosing classified FBI documents to online writer Richard Silverstein. The documents related to FBI wiretaps of the Israeli Embassy and exposed how Israel exploits its power and influence to manipulate Congress. He received a 20-month prison sentence.


Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee and contractor, leaked more classified information than any previous whistleblower in U.S. history. The political establishment is still reeling from the avalanche of revelations that his leak laid bare. Thanks to Snowden, a real debate was ignited over the methods of the Surveillance State. He is charged with two counts of violating the Espionage Act, as well as theft of government property.


An honorable mention of others who have mishandled classified information in the same manner as Hillary should be made as well. This includes naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who, in 2012, admitted to mishandling classified information. He had downloaded classified information onto his personal devices while on base in Afghanistan and carried them to the United States. Like Hillary, he was found innocent of “criminal intent,” yet he was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and the forfeiture of his personal computers that contained the classified data.

The lesson of Obama’s unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers, combined with the not-even-a-wrist-slap for Hillary, is a stark reminder that there are two classes operating in American society: the elites and the peons. Understanding the difference between a Hillary and a Nishimura, who committed the exact same crime, is understanding just how wide a gulf exists between the elites and the rest of us.

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.

Assassinating Trump

• Controlled media ignores assassination attempts.

By John Tiffany —

Is the constant demonizing of Donald J. Trump by the United States establishment media effectively encouraging would-be assassins?

It would seem serious assassination attempts on Trump are increasing, though you wouldn’t believe it if you just read the mainstream press. The most recent bid to kill the out-spoken populist presidential candidate was carried out by an illegal alien in late June, but the corporate media largely failed to cover it.

On June 21, British national Michael Steven Sandford, who had overstayed his visa and was in the U.S. illegally, tried to kill Donald Trump in the Mystere Theater in the Treasure Island Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Sandford has freely admitted he had intended to kill Trump. He believed he could seize a policeman’s pistol and get off a round or two, and expected to be killed in the process. Thankfully, the cop was able to fight off Sandford, and the illegal alien wound up in jail. On July 6, Sandford pleaded guilty to several charges, including being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm.

According to news reports, Sandford drove to Las Vegas from New Jersey sometime in mid-June. Arriving in Vegas on or around June 16, he went to a gun range to learn how to shoot on June 17.


Sandford is described as not mentally ill, but he does have some issues. His mother said he was autistic, obsessive-compulsive, “lovesick,” and anorexic, and had attempted suicide in the past.

The Secret Service agent who questioned Sandford said the young fellow would certainly try again to kill Trump if released from custody.

Sandford’s father, Paul Davey, told The News of Portsmouth, England, “He’s never shown any violent tendencies before.” Davey suggested someone must have “blackmailed” his son or put him up to it. “That’s the only thing me and his mum can think of,” he added.

In another high-profile case, on March 12, Thomas DiMassimo, 22, allegedly rushed the stage in Vandalia, Ohio, where Trump was addressing a crowd. There was evidence the deranged individual was wielding a ceramic knife and may have cut a guard’s hand while trying to stab Trump. The Fairborn, Ohio man, who is a former child actor, was taken down by guards and hustled away without getting to his intended victim.

DiMassimo can be seen in video footage dragging an American flag on the ground in some sort of protest and has also sought attention by burning a Confederate flag. He calls himself a civil rights advocate. He was charged with disorderly conduct and inducing panic. He pleaded not guilty, his attorney claiming he was merely trying to air his political views.

Given the recent attacks on police officers around the U.S., some people expect the attempts on Trump’s life to only get worse.

Donate to us

John Tiffany is copy editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS and assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He has a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Michigan and has done postgraduate studies in law, biology and computer science. He is devoted to the truth and lets the chips fall where they may.

Why Trump Is Routing the Free Traders

• GOP presidential candidate repudiates globalism, calls for return to “Americanism.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan —

In his recent indictment of free trade as virtual economic treason, The Donald has really set the cat down among the pigeons. For, in denouncing the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, most favored nation status for China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), all backed by Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan, Trump is all but calling his own party leaders dunderheads and losers. And he seems to be winning the argument.

As he calls for the repudiation of “globalism” and a return to “Americanism,” a Republican Congress renders itself mute on whether it will even vote on the TPP this year.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

On trade, Bernie Sanders is closer to Trump. Even Hillary Clinton has begun to renounce a TPP she once called the “gold standard” of trade deals.

Where have all the troubadours of free trade gone? Why do economic patriots seem ascendant? Is this like the Cold War, where the other side gets up and goes home?

Answer. As Trump pointed out in Monessen in the Mon Valley of Pennsylvania, the returns from free trade are in, and the results are rotten.

Since Bush I, we have run $12 trillion in trade deficits, $4 trillion with China. Once a Maoist dump, China has become the greatest manufacturing power on Earth. Meanwhile, the United States has lost 50,000 factories and a third of its manufacturing jobs.

Trump is going to start a “trade war,” wail the critics. But the damage wreaked upon U.S. industry by free traders already rivals what Arthur “Bomber” Harris did for German industry in the Ruhr.

In recent decades, every major U.S. trade partner—China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, the European Union—has run annual trade surpluses at our expense. How do 40 years of trade deficits in goods, run by a nation that rarely ran one for a century before, make us stronger or wealthier? Or is what is best for the world now more important than what is best for America?

And here we come to the heart of the argument. Washington, Hamilton, and Henry Clay, father of the “American system,” and Lincoln and every Republican president up to Eisenhower, crafted trade policies to promote manufacturing to grow the wealth of the USA.

They were patriots—not globalists.

They knew that America’s political independence required economic independence of all other nations. They wanted to build an economy where Americans would cut their bonds to foreign lands and come to rely upon one another for the needs and necessities of their national life. They sought to make us independent, so that we could not be dragged by economic ties into the inevitable wars of the Old World.

And they succeeded magnificently.

Britain, which embraced free trade in the 1840s, became so reliant on imports that a few dozen German submarines almost knocked her out of World War I. Protectionist America had to come pull her chestnuts out of the fire.

Free trade ideology is not America-made. It is an alien faith, a cargo cult, smuggled in from the old continent, the work of men Edmund Burke called “sophisters, economists, and calculators.”

David Ricardo, James and John Stuart Mill, Richard Cobden, all chatterers and scribblers, none of whom ever built a great nation, declared free trade to be the new New Testament, the salvation of mankind.


These men in whose souls the old faith was dying seized on a utopian belief that world government and free trade would be the salvation of mankind. The Economist magazine was founded to preach the heresy.

Before the modern era, Americans never bought into it. But now, our elites have. And, undeniably, there are beneficiaries to free trade.

There are first the owners, operators and shareholders of companies who, to be rid of high-wage American labor, moved production to China or Mexico or where the costs are lower and regulations near nonexistent.

Transnational companies, their K Street lobbyists, and media that survive on their advertising dollars, are the biggest boosters of free trade, as they are the biggest beneficiaries.

Consumers, too, at least initially, see more products down at the mall, selling at lower prices. Cheap consumer goods are the bribes free traders proffer to patriots to sell out their country and countrymen to capitalists who have no country.

But we are not simply consumers. We are Americans. We are fellow citizens. We are neighbors. We have duties to one another.

When a factory shuts down and a town begins to die, workers are laid off. The local tax base shrinks, education and social services are cut. Folks go on unemployment and food stamps. We all pay for that.

Wives go to work and kids come home from school to empty houses, and families break up and move away. Social disintegration follows.

“Creative destruction” is the antiseptic term free traders use to describe what they have done and are doing to the America we grew up in.

Southeast of the old Steel City, in the Mon Valley of Pennsylvania, where my mother and her six brothers and her sister grew up, folks describe what happened more poignantly and graphically.

Donate to us

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

Reporter Fired for Crime Comments

• Award-winning journalist dismissed for benign comment about black-on-black violence.

By John Friend —

An award-winning journalist who was fired in late March from WTAE-TV, a local Pittsburgh-based ABC news affiliate, is suing her former employer for discrimination.

Wendy Bell, who joined WTAE in 1998 and had won 21 regional Emmy Awards, was fired for comments she made on a WTAE-sponsored Facebook page where the popular journalist was active and often interacted with viewers and supporters of the local news outlet. Mrs. Bell, who is white, had covered the black-on-black violent crime wave that has impacted the Pittsburgh community particularly hard for the local news outlet.

Mrs. Bell’s Facebook post came in response to a gruesome ambush in Wilkinsburg, a largely black suburb just east of Pittsburgh, on March 9, where local law enforcement officials believe at least two men opened fired on a backyard BBQ party. Six people, including a pregnant mother and her unborn child, were killed during the attack.

When Mrs. Bell made her Facebook post roughly two weeks following the heinous attack, no arrests had been made and police had not yet released any details or descriptions of the attackers. However, given the nature of black-on-black violent crime in the Steel City, and the racial demographics of both Wilkinsburg and the victims of the attack, Mrs. Bell made the obvious observation that the attackers were likely young black men.

“You needn’t be a criminal profiler to draw a mental sketch of the killers who broke so many hearts two weeks ago Wednesday,” Mrs. Bell’s Facebook post, which was later deleted, read in part. “They are young black men, likely in their teens or in their early 20s. They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs. These boys have been in the system before. They’ve grown up there. They know the police. They’ve been arrested.”

Mrs. Bell’s post went on to praise a young black busboy at a local restaurant she and her family ate at, noting that he gave her hope and that “he’s going to make it.”

A vocal minority viewed the benign post as offensive, condescending, and even racist, while others praised her for speaking her mind and caring so deeply about violent crime and the people impacted by it in the city she loves.

Since her controversial post, local police have arrested two black men, Cheron Shelton and Robert Thomas, as suspects in the March 9 ambush shootings. Shelton and Thomas have not officially been charged.

After receiving criticism for the post, Mrs. Bell eventually deleted it and apologized, saying her words were “insensitive” and could possibly be interpreted as “racist.”

“I regret offending anyone,” Mrs. Bell wrote. “I’m truly sorry.”

Soon after making the post and then apologizing for it, WTAE fired the longtime news anchor. Hearst Television, WTAE’s parent company, released a statement at the time, saying, “WTAE has ended its relationship with anchor Wendy Bell. Wendy’s recent comments on a WTAE Facebook page were inconsistent with the company’s ethics and journalistic standards.”

Shortly after being fired, Mrs. Bell defended herself and told an Associated Press (AP) reporter she did not get a “fair shake” from her former employer. She noted that the story is not about her or her allegedly offensive comments, but about “African-Americans being killed by other African-Americans.”

“It makes me sick,” Mrs. Bell told told the AP. “What matters is what’s going on in America, and it is the death of black people in this country. . . . I live next to three war-torn communities in the city of Pittsburgh, that I love dearly. My stories, they struck a nerve. They touched people, but it’s not enough. More needs to be done. The problem needs to be addressed.”

Supporters of Mrs. Bell took to social media and comments sections of various websites reporting on her firing to voice their outrage at her treatment. Some even said they would boycott WTAE as a result of the station’s treatment of Mrs. Bell.


In a federal lawsuit filed in late June, Mrs. Bell’s attorney argued that the WTAE violated the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to Samuel J. Cordes, Mrs. Bell’s attorney, had Mrs. Bell been a black journalist making similar comments, she would not have been fired.

“Had an African-American journalist said the same thing, it wouldn’t have generated the same quote-outcry-unquote,” Cordes told local media outlets after the suit was filed. “What she said was benign at best. President Obama has said similar things.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Interestingly, the lawsuit notes that WTAE station managers met with representatives of the Pittsburgh Black Media Federation (PBMF) the very same day the decision was announced to fire Mrs. Bell. PBMF members claim, however, that they did not meet with WTAE officials until after their decision was made, and that they did not call for Mrs. Bell’s termination.

Mrs. Bell hopes to have her job reinstated, as well as receive back pay and other damages as a result of her termination. The suit also seeks a guarantee that Mrs. Bell not be discriminated or retaliated against “because she opposed race discrimination,” according to local reports.

“Mrs. Bell’s posting of concern for the African-American community stung by mass shooting was clearly and obviously not intended to be racially offensive,” the lawsuit plainly argues.

Donate to us

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

U.S. Military Breeding Black Racist Assassins

• Three separate “racial rampages” have many white Americans on edge that a race war is in full swing.

By Dave Gahary —

This newspaper’s been telling its readers for a while now that race wars are coming to a neighborhood near you, and we were, sadly, right.

In a troubling sign predicted by some in the patriot movement, the beginnings of a violent race war have begun to erupt across this once-great nation, as several black military veterans went on racial rampages in July, randomly targeting white citizens and police as payback for what they reportedly perceive as white police violence against blacks.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The racial rampage began in Bristol, Tennessee on July 7, when Lakeem Keon Scott, a black 37-year-old United States Army veteran armed with an assault rifle, a pistol and a large amount of ammunition, began firing randomly at vehicles on the roadway. Sadly, one of his bullets found the head of newspaper carrier Jennifer Rooney, a 44-year-old mother of two, who was on her way to pick up papers for her morning delivery.

“Everything was good about Jennifer,” said Rooney’s husband. “She was a wonderful mother and wonderful wife. She was a big-hearted person who gave 110% to everyone—especially the children.”

Scott was motivated to slaughter whites in response to so-called white police “violence” against blacks, and the story received almost no mainstream media coverage, and was completely overshadowed by the black slaughter of whites that occurred in Dallas, Texas a few hours later.

Micah Xavier Johnson, 25, went on a mindless racial rampage in Dallas in the evening hours of July 7, when certain members of the Dallas Police Department were assigned to ensure the peace at a Black Lives Matter rally organized to protest the deaths of two career-criminal black men in Louisiana and Minnesota.

Four white police officers were gunned down in cold blood, as well as one member of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit squad. Those murdered were a former Army Ranger, a former Marine, and a former Navy sailor. It was the deadliest single incident for law enforcement officers since the 9/11 false-flag terrorist attacks.


Buy Book Button

After this issue went to press, another racial rampage occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where Gavin Eugene Long opened fire on police, killing three officers and wounding three others.

Long, a black male from Kansas City, Missouri, was also a former military member. CBS News reported that “according to a military source, Long left the Marines in 2010 with an honorable discharge. His final Marine rank was E-5 (sergeant).”

The Daily Caller reported that videos on Long’s YouTube account show he was a former Nation of Islam member and he railed against “crackers,” as well as alluding to Alton Sterling, the black man killed by Baton Rouge police on July 5.

Although most attacks perpetrated by military veterans who have targeted civilians have been committed by whites, they have not been directed against one race in particular. This latest racial rampage was done by black U.S. Armed Forces veterans who made no bones about their desire to murder whites.

Some in the patriotic community fear that this phenomenon, where blacks are trained to kill in the U.S. military for the eventual purpose of reining in the majority white population, who are generally pro-American, seems to have been given more credence from these recent events.


Particularly disturbing is the fact that Johnson sympathized and associated with black militant organizations. He visited the websites of the New Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam and the African American Defense League, whose leader calls for the murders of police officers across the U.S.

U.S. law enforcement should have been, in the eyes of many informed observers, aware of Johnson’s radical leanings, and placed him on their radar. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to indicate that Johnson was being monitored by any law enforcement agencies, specifically the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI), who has spent an enormous amount of resources—financed by the hapless U.S. taxpayer, of course—hunting down mythical “white gangs.” In fact, gangs made up of whites are virtually non-existent in this country; gangs are almost completely comprised of blacks and Hispanics.

One has to question the leadership of the FBI, whose head disappointed tens of millions of law-abiding Americans who watched and listened to the news conference where the director of the nation’s top law enforcement agency announced his office would not be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton, who clearly violated several federal laws associated with her use of private email when she served as U.S. Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” said James B. Comey, Jr., the seventh director of the FBI, in prepared remarks for a July 5 press briefing.

Donate to us

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s ‘Underground Interview’ series. He prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him.

Be sure to check out all of AFP’s free audio interviews. You’ll find them on the HOME PAGE, in the ARCHIVES & in the AUDIO section.

Is it Time for Ginsburg to Go?

• A democratic republic no longer exists when justices of the mindset of Ginsburg, who have never been elected, but serve for life, can impose these views, anti-democratically, upon the country.

By Patrick J. Buchanan —

“Her mind is shot.”

That was the crisp diagnosis of Donald J. Trump on hearing the opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg* on the possibility he might become president.

It all began with an interview last week when the justice was asked for her thoughts on a Trump presidency. Ginsburg went on a tear.

“I can’t imagine what this place (the Supreme Court) would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

Yet she had contemplated the horror of it all, as she quoted her late husband as saying of such a catastrophe, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

This week, Ginsburg doubled down.

“Trump is a faker,” she vented in chambers on Monday, “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head. . . . He really has an ego. . . . How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

Sounding like Democratic Party Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ginsburg attacked the Senate for not voting on Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

True, your honor, but there is also nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate must vote expeditiously, or at all.

Ginsburg hailed Justice Anthony Kennedy as “the great hero of this term” for his votes upholding abortion rights and affirmative action.

“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she added, which comes close to saying the death of the great jurist was not entirely unwelcome to the leading liberal on the court.

“I’d love to see Citizens United overruled,” Ginsburg volunteered, which gives us a pretty good idea how she will vote when that question comes before the court again.

As The Wall Street Journal notes, under Section 28 US Code 455, “(a)ny justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States must disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Since “himself” and “his” refer to men, perhaps Ginsburg does not think the rules apply to her.

The federal code of judicial conduct for United States judges, says the Chicago Tribune, states that a “judge should not . . .  publicly endorse a candidate for public office.”



Get This Deal Button

But does not Ginsburg’s relentless trashing of Trump constitute a political attack on him, to help his opponent Hillary Clinton?

Ginsburg “should resign from the Court before she does the reputation of the judiciary more harm,” says the Journal.

There is a precedent. Justice Abe Fortas resigned in 1969 in a scandal when his ties to a convicted swindler became known.

But a dissent here. Why should Ginsburg resign? Did anyone doubt she held these views? Did she hide her radical liberalism from the Senate that confirmed her 96-3 in 1993, with only three Republicans dissenting, led by the venerable Jesse Helms?

Ginsburg was an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer and feminist-activist when she was named to the appellate court by Jimmy Carter. Her views were no secret to anyone when the Senate confirmed her.

Let us not pretend we did not know. Thus, why should she step down for airing political and ideological views everyone knew she held?


Liberal angst is understandable. Ginsburg is giving away the game.

How can liberals credibly uphold the pretense that Supreme Court decisions, where the left is the majority, represent judgments based on the Constitution, when Ginsburg, the leading leftist, has revealed herself to be a rabid partisan who can’t wait to use her judicial power to impose her ideology upon the United States?

Ginsburg detests Trump. She wants to kill super PACs. She thinks discrimination against white males is fine if it advances diversity. She thinks Republican Senators are blockheads who do not know their duties.

She thinks the death penalty is barbaric, and that abortion on demand and same-sex marriage are progressive. She is waiting for a case to come before her so she can restrict gun rights.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

In a democratic republic, she has a right to hold and air these views.

But a democratic republic no longer exists when justices of the mindset of Ginsburg, who have never been elected, but serve for life, can impose these views, anti-democratically, upon the country.

Since the Earl Warren era, the Supreme Court has usurped the legislative power and imposed social policies, and Congress, which has the power under Article III to shackle the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and restrict the court’s jurisdiction, has lacked the courage to do so.

This is the problem, not Ginsburg. She does what leftist ideologues do. The problem is elsewhere.

Pogo said it best, “We have met the enemy—and he is us.”

* On 7/14, Ginsburg issued a statement apologizing for her remarks about Donald Trump.

Donate to us

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

Will Hillary Ditch Black Lives Matter?

• Black Lives Matter . . . is pure hatred, and as it is directed against white cops, racist.

By Patrick J. Buchanan —

After the massacre of five Dallas cops, during a protest of police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota, President Obama said, “America is not as divided as some have suggested.”

Former D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey, an African-American, says we are “sitting on a powder keg.”

Put me down as agreeing with the president. For when a real powder keg blew in the ‘60s, I was there. And this is not it.

In 1965, the Watts area of Los Angeles exploded in the worst racial violence since the New York draft riot of 1863 when Lincoln had to send in veterans of Gettysburg. After six days of looting, shooting and arson in LA, there were 34 dead, 1,000 injured, 4,000 arrested.

In 1967, Newark, New Jersey, and Detroit exploded, bringing out not only the Guard but the 82nd Airborne. After Dr. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, a hundred American cities burst into flame.

Troops defended the White House. Marines mounted machine guns on the Capitol steps. Thousands of soldiers patrolled the city. The 7th and 14th street corridors of my hometown, D.C., were gutted and would not be rebuilt for years. That was a powder keg—that went off.

But only crazed cop-haters applaud that Dallas atrocity by the delusional anti-white racist Micah X. Johnson. As for the shootings of Philando Castile in Minnesota and Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, almost all agree they must be investigated, and justice done.

Chief Ramsey says he expects trouble at the conventions. But if Black Lives Matter shows up to raise hell in Cleveland, then that is going to be a problem for Hillary Clinton.

This writer was on the 19th floor of the “Comrade Hilton” in August 1968, looking down as Mayor Daley’s finest marched up Balbo to Michigan Avenue, then stormed into Grant Park to deliver street justice to the radicals calling them “pigs.”

“A police riot” liberals raged. The cops beat “our children” up.

Richard Nixon came down on the side of the cops, carried Illinois and won the election. Liberals were still calling “law and order” code words for racism. Most Americans had come to recognize they were the indispensable elements of a decent and civilized society.

“Richard Nixon,” lamented Hunter S. Thompson, “is living in the White House today because of what happened that night in Chicago.”

This weekend, Rudy Giuliani called Black Lives Matter “inherently racist.” Does he not have a point?



Softcover, 149 pages, $15

Buy Book Button

After the death of Eric Garner in a police takedown, Black Lives Matter led mobs onto the streets and highways of Manhattan chanting, “What do we Want? Dead Cops! When do we want them? Now!”

In anti-police demonstrations since, another chant has been, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon.”

This is pure hatred, and as it is directed against white cops, racist.

Obama should tell Black Lives Matter to stop the hate. But though he has shown no reluctance to lecture white America, he has rarely shown the same stern judgment with black America.

Now there is no denying that urban black communities are among the most heavily policed. Why? As Heather Mac Donald, author of “The War on Cops,” writes of a city she knows well:

“Black people make up 23% of New York’s population, but they commit 75% of all shootings. . . . Whites are 33% of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than 2% of all shootings . . .

“These disparities mean that virtually every time that police in New York are called out after a shooting, they are being summoned into minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.”


As these percentages are unlikely to change, we are going to have more collisions between black males and white cops. Some will end in the shooting of black criminals and suspects and, on occasion, innocent black men. Some are going to result in the death of cops.

Mistakes are going to be made, and tragedies occur, as with the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, killed in Cleveland while waving a toy pistol.

But if there is to be a social explosion every time an incident occurs, like the deaths of Trayvon Martin, shot while beating a neighborhood watch coordinator, and Michael Brown, shot in Ferguson after trying to grab a cop’s gun, America is going to be permanently polarized.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

And there is no doubt where the majority will come down, and who will be the near-term beneficiary.

Monday, Donald Trump declared himself “the law and order candidate,” and added: “America’s police . . . are what separates civilization from total chaos and destruction of our country as we know it.”

And Clinton? On Friday, she said, “I’m going to be talking to white people. I think we’re the ones who have to start listening.”

Prediction: If Black Lives Matter does not clean up its act, Obama and Clinton will have to throw this crowd over the side, or the BLM will take her down.

Donate to us

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

Should Hillary Be in Jail — Tell Us What You Think

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, Jr. held a press conference on July 5 to announce that the FBI will not recommend that criminal charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information on her private email server.

While Comey said there was not enough evidence to prosecute Hillary, he added that she had a minimum of 52 classified email chains passing through her unclassified server. This violation has led to sanctions being filed against other federal workers and contractors.

Comey did take a few slaps at Hillary, saying: “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

But, ultimately, Comey concluded: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Do you think the FBI believes that Hillary is too big to jail. Please take a moment to tell us what you think.

[socialpoll id=”2372996″]

And while you’re at it, why don’t you leave a comment below to tell us what you really think about Hillary, the Teflon presidential candidate?

Cultural Marxists Employ Terror Tactics, Violence to Intimidate Trump Supporters

By John Friend —

The 2016 United States presidential election is shaping up to be one of the most monumental elections in the past 50 years. The presumptive GOP and Democratic nominees stand in stark contrast to one another, polarizing America’s electorate along cultural and ideological lines.

Donald J. Trump, the maverick populist who received more primary votes than any other Republican candidate in history, pledges to build a wall along the southern border with Mexico to curtail illegal immigration, deport illegal aliens residing in the U.S., end or re-negotiate America’s disastrous free trade deals, protect the Second Amendment, and put America first when it comes to foreign policy. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, panders to minorities, wants to grant citizenship to the millions of illegal aliens currently living in the U.S., supports more gun control measures, and champions a variety of other leftist causes the Obama administration has promoted during its eight-year reign.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Mrs. Clinton and her supporters have repeatedly denounced Trump as a racist and a bigot whose rhetoric is undermining America’s values. The mainstream mass media and a variety of political pundits also regularly denounce Trump and his frank, straightforward approach to politics.

The rallies Trump has organized across America have drawn massive crowds along with obnoxious, confrontational, and often violent counter-protests that are no doubt fueled and instigated by the media and pundit class hysterically attacking and deriding Trump.

In March, America first witnessed just what anti-Trump protesters are capable of. At a large Trump rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago just days before the Illinois primary, before he could even take the stage to address the audience, campaign officials had to cancel the event due to protests and fights breaking out both inside and outside the arena. After consulting with local law enforcement officials, it was decided that carrying on with the event would put too many people at risk. Violence and mayhem ensued despite the rally being canceled, and anti-Trump protesters were seen chanting, cheering, waving Mexican flags, and harassing Trump supporters.

The chaos seen in Chicago has been replicated in cities across America throughout the primary season. This reporter attended a massive Trump rally in Costa Mesa, California in late April, where some of the worst violence and chaos of the primary election season ensued. While the rally itself was peaceful, outside the venue protesters burned American flags, harassed and assaulted Trump supporters, damaged private property, and even destroyed a local Costa Mesa police vehicle. Few arrests were made, despite a strong presence of local and county law enforcement officials.

In early June leading up to the California primary election, Trump held a series of rallies across the state, including in San Jose, which experienced shocking levels of this behavior. Video emerged of anti-Trump protesters violently assaulting Trump supporters outside the arena where the rally was held in downtown San Jose while local law enforcement officers stood by and watched.

Protesters were seen confronting and assaulting Trump supporters, snatching the signature “Make America Great Again” Trump hats from the heads of supporters, burning both the American flag and Trump hats, and proudly waving the Mexican flag. Some held signs declaring California Mexican territory while others ludicrously compared Trump to Adolf Hitler. In one ugly scene, a woman was surrounded by anti-Trump protesters, pelted with eggs, spat upon, and cursed at. Other supporters were sucker-punched from behind by the protesters, and one young man was chased down by an angry mob. Protesters were also filmed jumping on police vehicles, kicking and damaging supporters’ vehicles as they left the area, throwing traffic cones, and generally causing destruction. Many of the protesters openly described themselves as illegal aliens.


Thus far, San Jose police have apprehended nine anti-Trump protesters, including four juveniles. Those arrested have been charged with assault and battery, vandalism, and robbery.

Trump later described the protesters as “thugs” and criticized Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose, for not keeping the peace and protecting the rally-goers. Incredibly, Liccardo—who is a Democrat and proud supporter of Mrs. Clinton—blamed the violence on Trump’s rhetoric, implying he was to blame for the criminal behavior at his rallies.

“At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” Liccardo told the Associated Press by phone.

Amazingly, political pundits and leftist activists have justified the violence, joining Liccardo in blaming Trump himself for causing it. Jesse Benn, a writer for “The Huffington Post,” a left-wing outlet that has hysterically attacked and demonized Trump for months now, published an op-ed recently arguing that a violent response to Trump’s candidacy is “logical” and even justified, given the controversial positions Trump has taken on a variety of issues, especially as they relate to immigration.

The lines are clearly being drawn in this election season. The political left in America is showing its true colors. Rather than responsibly engage in the political process, elements of the left are resorting to violence and terrorism to intimidate Trump supporters and negate their First Amendment rights. The chaotic and violent scenes from places like San Jose and Costa Mesa are an indicator of what happens to a country that allows millions of hostile, unassimilable, Third World people—including millions of illegal aliens—into their territory.

This election truly is about the future of America. Will we continue to devolve into a Third World cesspool or will we start enforcing our immigration laws and place the interests of the American people first?

Donate to us

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