Fed’s Duplicity, Dirty Dealing Exposed in Trial of Oregon Protesters

In a rare win, seven protesters, including the well-known Bundy brothers, were found not guilty by a jury after they faced charges following the 41-day protest at the Malheur Wildlife Preserve in Oregon. The good news was short lived, though, as the brothers are still being held in jail pending a trial related to their victory over the BLM in 2014 in Nevada.

By Christopher J. Petherick

In some much-needed good news, on Oct. 27, a jury found seven protesters, including Ammon and Ryan Bundy, not guilty of charges stemming from the month-long occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.

Defense attorneys for the group of demonstrators did an outstanding job of discrediting the prosecution’s case, revealing to the court that, at a minimum, 15 paid federal informants had infiltrated the protest and were likely responsible for some of the worst behavior during the occupation of the federal wildlife preserve.


According to the attorneys, one heavily armed informant had traveled all the way from Las Vegas at the behest of the FBI and began brandishing his weapons for the media to see. He also set up daily shooting classes and was likely the one responsible for shooting up the site and leaving behind thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

From the start of the trial, the prosecutor had little grounds to charge the group, which accounts for why the protesters, in spite of all the drama and character assassinations, faced ridiculous charges such as the main allegation that they conspired to “impede federal workers from their jobs”—a far cry from the salacious claims made by law enforcement and the mainstream media that these were dangerous, violent right-wing extremists.

In truth, defense attorneys successfully convinced a jury that the most dangerous and violent extremists at the preserve were evidently the federal informants on the payroll of the FBI, who were sent to provoke demonstrators into committing crimes.

While this is certainly good news, there is no turning back the clock on the tragic shooting of Arizona rancher Lavoy Finicum, who was gunned down by state police after law enforcement set up a roadblock on a blind turn, provoking an altercation.

Law enforcement claims that Finicum was attempting to draw a pistol when he was shot are disputed by footage shot from a helicopter, which shows Finicum in the classic “hands up, don’t shoot” position before being shot from behind. In addition, cellphone footage shot inside Finicum’s truck clearly shows trigger-happy police unloading on a car full of citizens who were merely on their way to meet with the local sheriff at a town hall meeting.

AMERICAN FREE PRESS has interviewed a number of people involved with the protest as well as Cliven Bundy, the father of the Bundy brothers. Cliven was arrested after he showed up following the arrest of his sons. He is currently in jail, facing spurious charges related to his showdown with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Nevada.

Following the verdict, the defense attorney for Ammon Bundy demanded that his client be released and then reportedly yelled at the judge after she gave some bizarre reason for keeping Bundy in jail. U.S. marshals ended up tackling Marcus Mumford to the ground and then used a stun gun on him several times before arresting him.


Ultimately, the Bundys were not released, though, because they still face charges next year in Nevada stemming from the run-in with the BLM.

About a dozen other Oregon demonstrators have already accepted plea deals from prosecutors and are currently serving time in prison. Another ten are awaiting trial, though that now remains in doubt after this latest jury ruling.

AFP reached out to the Bundys, but we were unable to get an immediate response before this article was published.

Christopher J. Petherick is the editor-in-chief of American Free Press.

The Path to Total Dictatorship: America’s Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup

According to a leading constitutional attorney, a massive shadow government has been erected behind our democratic republic made up of millions of unelected bureaucrats, mercenaries, and lobbyists. These are the people, who make up the real power behind Washington—not the two puppets paraded in front of America this campaign cycle.

By John W. Whitehead

Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law. Say hello to America’s shadow government.

A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government—also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”—may well have played a part in who will win the White House this year.


To be precise, however, the future president will actually inherit not one but two shadow governments.

The first shadow government, referred to as COG or Continuity of Government, is made up of unelected individuals who have been appointed to run the government in the event of a “catastrophe.” COG is a phantom menace waiting for the right circumstances—a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, an economic meltdown—to bring it out of the shadows, where it operates even now. When and if COG takes over, the police state will transition to martial law.

Yet it is the second shadow government—also referred to as the Deep State—that poses the greater threat to freedom right now. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government is the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our government.

The Deep State, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.

“Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the president, or the people. Outwardly we have a constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system . . . a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. . . . The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. . . . It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our government. . . . This group . . . is answerable neither to the president, Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.”

– Sen. William Jenner, 1954 speech

So who or what is the Deep State?

It’s the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. It’s the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It’s the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. It’s the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It’s the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, “a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.” It’s what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as “a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies”: the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

These are the key players that drive the shadow government.

This is the hidden face of the American police state that will continue long past Election Day.

Just consider some of the key programs and policies advanced by the shadow government that will continue no matter who occupies the Oval Office.


No matter who wins the presidential popularity contest, the National Security Agency (NSA), with its $10.8 billion black ops annual budget, will continue to spy on every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. Thus, on any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Local police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.


The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what The Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” will continue to span the globe and target every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone in the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage.


The American taxpayer will continue to get ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. One of the greatest culprits when it comes to swindling taxpayers has been the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with its questionable deployment of and complete mismanagement of millions of dollars’ worth of airport full-body X-ray scanners, punitive patdowns by TSA agents, and thefts of travelers’ valuables. Considered essential to national security, TSA programs will continue in airports and at transportation hubs around the country.


America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, will continue to chip away at our freedoms, unravel our Constitution and transform our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. In so doing, they re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the U.S. Constitution, is the map by which we navigate life in the United States. These laws will continue to be enforced no matter who gets elected.


Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces will continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, will continue to keep the masses corralled, controlled, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.


With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by local police for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties will continue to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams will continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession.


The domestic use of drones will continue unabated. As mandated by Congress, there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth as much as $30 billion per year. These machines, which will be equipped with weapons, will be able to record all activities, using video feeds, heat sensors, and radar. An Inspector General report revealed that the Department of Justice has already spent nearly $4 million on drones domestically, largely for use by the FBI, with grants for another $1.26 million so police departments and nonprofits can acquire their own drones.


The paradigm of abject compliance to the state will continue to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior. School districts will continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court.



The government bureaucracy will continue to churn out laws, statutes, codes, and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community will continue to have their farms raided.


States will continue to outsource prisons to private corporations, resulting in a cash cow whereby mega-corporations imprison Americans in private prisons in order to make a profit. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.


America’s expanding military empire will continue to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military-industrial complex at taxpayer expense.

Are you getting the message yet?

The next president, much like the current president and his predecessors, will be little more than a figurehead, a puppet to entertain and distract the populace from what’s really going on.

As Lofgren reveals, this state within a state, “concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” is a “hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.”

The Deep State not only holds the nation’s capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street (“which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater”) and Silicon Valley.

This is tyranny in its most covert form, hiding behind public agencies and private companies to carry out its dirty deeds.

It is a marriage between government bureaucrats and corporate fat cats.

Layout 1

As Lofgren concludes:

[T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change. . . . If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.

In other words, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, as long as government officials—elected and unelected alike—are allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, the courts and the citizenry, the threat to our freedoms remains undiminished.

So the next time you find yourselves despondent over the 2016 presidential candidates, remember that it’s just a puppet show intended to distract you from the silent coup being carried out by America’s shadow government.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People is available online from AFP’s Bookstore. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].



The Establishment Is In a Panic

Following the last debate on Oct. 19, the establishment has been in a tizzy over statements made by Donald Trump, who said he would not accept defeat to Hillary Clinton. The fear is that this revolution is bigger than the Donald and that growing numbers of Americans now reject the legitimacy and moral authority of the federal government.

By Patrick Buchanan

Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace as to whether he would accept defeat should Hillary Clinton win the election, Donald Trump replied, “I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.”

“That’s horrifying,” said Clinton, setting off a chain reaction on the post-debate panels with talking heads falling all over one another in purple-faced anger, outrage and disbelief.

“Disqualifying!” was the cry on Clinton cable.

“Trump Won’t Say If He Will Accept Election Results,” wailed The New York Times. “Trump Won’t Vow to Honor Results,” ran the banner in The Washington Post.


But what do these chattering classes and establishment bulletin boards think the Donald is going to do if he falls short of 270 electoral votes?

Lead a Coxey’s Army on Washington and burn it down as British General Robert Ross did in August 1814, while “Little Jemmy” Madison fled on horseback out the Brookville Road?

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

What explains the hysteria of the establishment?

In a word, fear.

The establishment is horrified at the Donald’s defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority.

It may rule and run the country, and may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.

Having fixed the future, the establishment finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.

Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: Its ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.

Trump is “talking down our democracy,” said a shocked Clinton.

After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed “democracy” as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach.

Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England and France to bring Christianity to the New World.

Today, Clintons, Obamas and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to “establish democracy” among the “lesser breeds without the Law.”

Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to re-establish their true God.

And Allah is no democrat.


By suggesting he might not accept the results of a “rigged election” Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.

For none of the three — diversity, equality, democracy — is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.

When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of government they had created, he answered, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it.

Consider: Six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.

If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it.

And if felons decide the electoral votes of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that election?

In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority, the matter went to the House.

There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency to Adams — and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams himself.

Were Jackson’s people wrong to regard as a “corrupt bargain” the deal that robbed the general of the presidency?

The establishment also recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke’s declaration that it is now “torches and pitchforks time.”

Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in “Points of Rebellion”:

“We must realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution.”

Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for “revolution” seems more constrained.

What goes around comes around.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Where’s the MSM When It Comes to Cops Beating a White Man Over a Suspended License?

The mainstream media has repeatedly promoted the narrative that racist police are targeting and murdering young black men. But when militarized police beat a white man nearly to death over a suspended license, no one seemed to care—even after the sheriff was indicted on perjury charges related to the case and sent to jail.

By John Friend

Roughly one year ago, this newspaper published a report highlighting the plight of Dustin Heathman, an American patriot and supporter of AFP based in Florida, who is currently serving a life sentence stemming from charges relating to a brutal encounter with the Marion County Sheriff’s Office in June 2014.

Heathman had his home in Williston, Fla. surrounded by the Marion County Sheriff’s Office, including its SWAT team, in June 2014 to enforce a warrant for his arrest arising from a suspended license.


Heathman’s suspended license charge was eventually dropped but not before a six-hour standoff and shootout took place between himself and law enforcement officers with the Marion Country Sheriff’s Office.

After Heathman was taken into custody, he was brutally beaten by law enforcement officials. Heathman was eventually charged with attempted second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, five counts of aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer, and one count of firing into a vehicle. Following his conviction, Heathman was sentenced to life in prison.

Heathman has maintained his innocence, and believes his side of the story was never properly aired.

Jenny Brown, a close friend and supporter of Heathman, recently spoke with AFP to provide some updates and further clarification on the case.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

“Dustin has definitely not been treated fairly,” Ms. Brown explained to this reporter. “The fact that the state had to change the charges against him three times, the last of which was just four days before trial, proves that they never had a case against him to begin with. And they only began doing this once the dishonesty in his case began to come to light. They even removed three of the original so-called ‘victims’ so the defense couldn’t put them on the stand and question them about their dishonesty.”

A number of high ranking officials in the Marion Country Sheriff’s Office have come under intense scrutiny in the wake of Heathman’s conviction. Many have either resigned or have been placed on administrative leave.

In late May, Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair—the highest ranking official in the organization—was indicted and booked into Marion County jail as a direct result of his involvement with Heathman’s case. The disgraced sheriff was indicted on perjury and official misconduct charges stemming from a grand jury investigation into excessive use of force by the Marion County Sheriff’s Department.

Following his arrest, Heathman informed Marion County Sheriff’s investigators he had been assaulted by their law enforcement officials. Heathman’s allegations were never taken seriously or acted upon. Former Sheriff Blair personally witnessed the injuries Heathman suffered at the hands of his deputies and then lied about it in front of the grand jury.

Another high ranking Marion County official who was also involved in Heathman’s case, Maj. Tommy Bibb, also resigned following Blair’s indictment. Heathman was interviewed by Bibb, however, his reports of being assaulted by Marion County Sheriff deputies were never officially reported.

“If the cops can do all that they’ve done—lying under oath, falsifying reports, omitting facts, covering things up, manipulating and withholding evidence favorable to the accused—and get away with it, when it’s known that the entire investigation and prosecution was dishonest and based on a false record of events, then how long before the public no longer trusts the justice system at all?” Ms. Brown asked this reporter. “How long before people lose faith in the police altogether, if they feel that the police and justice system can’t be trusted? It’s not just about Dustin. It’s not just about Marion County. It’s about doing what’s right. Dustin stood up to tyranny and didn’t put a scratch on anyone. He doesn’t deserve a life sentence for doing what our forefathers would have done. In fact, he doesn’t deserve to be in prison at all.”


Ms. Brown concluded: “Ultimately, I hope that all charges against Dustin will be thrown out, as they should have been, and that he will be released. Once again, I have to mention again that the state amended the charges three different times, and, each time, their entire story changed. Meanwhile Dustin has not been caught in a single lie, and his story has never changed. In fact, all the things he’s been saying since the very beginning are being proven to have been true all along. And as more and more dishonesty on the part of law enforcement comes out, the more we see that Dustin has been wrongfully arrested and imprisoned. He’s just an American patriot who stood up for what’s right, and hurt no one at all in doing so. It’s about time they let him go.”

AFP readers are encouraged to send Heathman a letter of support. He can be reached at:

Dustin Heathman #524936
Okaloosa Correctional Institution
3189 Colonel Greg Malloy Road
Crestview, FL 32539

John Friend is a writer and lives in California.

Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ Stopped Cold by Former Ally

Last week, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte told the U.S. to take a long walk off a short dock when it comes to stationing the U.S. military throughout the island country. Pointing to Western hypocrisy, the outspoken populist leader said he would rather turn to China than continue to be used by the U.S. in the ongoing dispute over the South China Sea.

By Rep. Ron Paul

While the mainstream media continues its obsessive reporting on the mud-slinging campaign for the White House, a dramatic development in China last week brought President Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” to a sudden halt. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, while in Beijing, announced his country’s “separation” from the United States. He told his Chinese audience, “Your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States … both in military, but also economics.’’


The State Department was stunned and asked for a clarification. The Philippines has been a virtual U.S. protectorate since 1898 when it became U.S. property after the Spanish-American war. Even after gaining independence after World War II it remained a close Cold War ally, hosting U.S. military bases until 1992. Just this spring, as U.S. tensions with China were heating up over a Chinese reclamation project in the South China Sea, the U.S. signed a deal to open five military bases on Philippine territory. The deal was considered of major importance in an increasingly confrontational U.S. approach to the region.

Suddenly it appeared the deal was off. Was the Philippines about to sever diplomatic relations with the United States?

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Shortly after making the statement, the Philippine president walked back slightly from what appeared a break with the United States. He did not mean total separation, he said, but rather a desire to loosen his country from the firm grip of U.S. foreign policy. But the point had been made. The Philippines was not happy in its current relationship with Washington.

Obama’s “pivot to Asia” has turned out not to mean improved trade and diplomatic ties with the region, but an aggressive stance toward China over, among other issues, the South China Sea. The U.S. has concluded military agreements with Vietnam and the Philippines, and maintains strong military ties with Japan and South Korea.

The Philippines has been used as a U.S. cat’s paw in South China Sea dispute and Duterte’s surprise statement signaled that he felt the relationship was too one-sided.

But the tension has been rising and the mood souring for some time. The State Department has been critical of President Duterte’s admittedly brutal crackdown on illegal drugs, which has cost perhaps 2,000 or more lives. In August, Secretary of State John Kerry conveyed the U.S. government’s concerns. As elsewhere, such condemnation by the U.S. likely seemed hypocritical to the Philippine president, as the U.S. leads the world in prison population with a large percentage serving long terms for non-violent drug crimes.

Last week a large protest was held in front of the U.S. embassy in Manila in support of the president’s move toward a foreign policy independent from Washington. Demonstrators burned American flags and demanded the departure of U.S. troops from their country.


Will U.S.-Philippine relations continue to spiral downward? Or will Washington begin to see that its aggressive foreign policy, in Asia and elsewhere, is beginning to alienate allies? Or perhaps the next U.S. administration will decide that a CIA “regime change” is in order for the independent-minded Philippine president.

A U.S. pivot away from confrontation with China would go a long way toward repairing strained relations with the Philippines and beyond. Let’s hope that’s Washington’s next move.

Ron Paul, M.D., is a former Republican congressman from Texas. He currently runs the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Help Us Keep Victor Thorn’s Life’s Work Alive

For years, author, researcher, publisher, radio show host, and political activist Victor Thorn tackled the most intellectually dangerous subjects in the world while still living a humble life outside the public eye in rural Pennsylvania. On Aug. 1, Victor passed away. Now American Free Press is doing all we can to keep his ideas, his work, and his spirit alive.

By Christopher J. Petherick

On Aug. 1, 2016, AMERICAN FREE PRESS received the terrible news that renowned author, reporter, radio show host, publisher, and researcher Victor Thron was dead, the apparent victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.


Immediately, his supporters began calling into question the circumstances surrounding his death. Given that Victor was a powerful critic of the criminal Clintons, it was no surprise that many felt Victor had been “suicided.”

Victor’s family is adamant that he took his own life. They say he talked about it on a number of occasions. Still, it is not surprising that many people remain skeptical—especially when you consider the foundation of Victor’s life’s work, which he built upon questioning everything, accepting nothing as truth, and leaving no stone unturned.

With this in mind, we at AFP have been working to assemble much of Victor’s considerable contributions to our newspaper, no easy task considering that Victor wrote literally hundreds of articles for us over the years.

For details on what we have dubbed the Victor Thorn Legacy Project, please visit the special THORN website that we have set up to help us raise funds to complete the three-book series.

Many people are familiar with Victor’s books but have never seen his political and historical writings, the vast majority of which appeared in the pages of American Free Press newspaper issue after issue, year after year.

As Victor wrote several stories an issue for AFP and wrote for us for 8 years, we have enough material to compose a three-volume set of his best and most provocative writings. Simply called THORN, the final page count is estimated at 600 pages, 200 per volume.

Here is a partial table of contents of the subjects covered:

  • The real Benghazi scandal
  • The Obamacare scam
  • Scientist killed to hide revolutionary fuel technology
  • Obama’s alternative energy scams
  • Protesting patriot ranchers speak to Thorn
  • Mysteries surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks
  • The Fukushima power plant disaster
  • Why Soros wants to incite a race war
  • The race hustlers profiting from conflict between blacks and whites
  • Hillary Clinton’s incestuous ties to Wall Street
  • How Hillary silenced Bill’s victims
  • The establishment clampdown on conspiracy research
  • University professor blasts the bane of political correctness
  • The truth about race crimes in America
  • The failure of liberal politics in Chicago
  • The collapse of the Bush dynasty
  • Literally hundreds and hundreds more!

The good news is that we are not asking for money for nothing. That’s not our style. Every person who donates to make this three-volume commemorative THORN set a reality will get copies of the THORN volumes, whether they are print or PDF versions.

We figure that we need to raise $25,000 to make this tribute possible.

Please click here for more details on how you can help kick-start this project

Help us make it happen by donating now. Click here for more information.

Christopher J. Petherick is AFFP’s editor-in-chief.

Supreme Court a Danger to Nation

A new book details how Supreme Court justices have subverted the U.S. Constitution and supplanted Congress as the “supreme law of the land”—and why we should all be worried. This matter is of extreme importance as we wait to see which of the presidential candidates will be picking the next generation of justices after the Nov. 8 election.

By Dave Gahary

Although many reasons are offered as to why this once-great nation has gone off the rails and is headed for disaster, a new book by a former state prosecutor—who was once described as “the prickly pear of Eastern Washington”—zeroes in on what he believes is the most likely culprit: the Supreme Court.


Recently, AMERICAN FREE PRESS conducted an exclusive interview with Donald C. Brockett, the 80-year-old author of The Tyrannical Rule of the U.S. Supreme Court: How the Court Has Violated the Constitution.

Brockett graduated law school in 1961 and joined the Spokane County, Wash. prosecuting attorney’s office as a deputy.

“In 1969, while I was a deputy prosecuting attorney, I was appointed to fill the elected prosecutor’s position when he retired,” said Brockett. “I subsequently ran for office six times and was reelected, serving as the elected prosecutor for 25 years. I then left the office and ended up in private practice after a short bout with colon cancer and the treatment for it. Seven years later I decided to re-retire and, while sitting around at home, decided that there was something I still needed to do, which was to tell people what I thought was a concern of mine in the country in terms of what our Supreme Court has done to us.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

As Brockett explains in his fine book, the Supreme Court was designed to rule on issues related only to the United States, not the states, and to be the least significant of the three branches of the federal government.

Trouble began early on, however, in 1803, only 27 years after the nation’s birth, in a Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison.


Click the button above to listen to AFP’s interview with author Donald Brockett, the author of the new book, The Tyrannical Rule of the U.S. Supreme Court: How the Court Has Violated the Constitution.


“The main culprit goes way back to Justice Marshall’s opinion when he decided that the court had the right of what he called ‘judicial review,’ although the court found it didn’t have jurisdiction to rule,” Brockett explained. “So that should’ve been the end of the case. However, Justice Marshall went on to opine—and I call it the meanderings of the judge—in what’s called by the Latin term dicta—something outside of the opinion itself—that the court had the right to interpret the Constitution and in fact had a duty to do so.”

The main author of the Constitution took notice of the ruling and the peril it foretold.

Said Brockett: “Thomas Jefferson, of course, picked up on it immediately, and wrote to his friend, saying, ‘This concept of judicial review of the Constitution itself is preposterous and will result in the court becoming the sole governing body over government.’ He wrote, ‘This is totally ridiculous that Marshall would hold this way, because that would make the court in a position to be a tyrannical rule of the people of the United States of America.’ And that’s exactly what’s occurred.”

Besides the dangerous precedent set by Congress accepting “judicial review” and other dicta that followed, a constitutional amendment, put in place after the so-called Civil War, opened the door to allow the Supreme Court to rule on state issues.

“They have misinterpreted the 14th Amendment, which had a specific purpose to protect the people who had previously been slaves, who were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation,” explained Brockett.

AFP asked how Marshall’s ruling was allowed to stand. “It happened progressively over the years because people just basically accepted it,” Brockett answered. “Now, what I don’t understand—of course, they don’t teach civics anymore in school—is why people don’t go back and study this and find that the people who wrote the Constitution said if a court ever gets carried away and doesn’t understand its position as the least important of the branches of government, they can simply be impeached.

Most people say that the Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. That’s not true. The Constitution says they are appointed to serve, ‘during good behavior.’ I would think that Congress could certainly find that a judge doesn’t serve during good behavior if he decides to take off on something in the Constitution that’s totally unbelievable, like finding that there’s a ‘right to dignity.’ Where did that right come from? That’s never been in the Constitution of the United States.”

“Right to dignity” is a court-created term used in the recent Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage. The court ruled a right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Justice Scalia, who unfortunately passed away recently, said of the same-sex marriage case, ‘Today’s opinion says that we are ruled by nine lawyers,’ ” said Brockett. “Now, most people don’t understand the significance of that, but for a judge to call his fellow judges lawyers is really demeaning them, putting them down and saying they don’t deserve the position to which they’ve been appointed because they’re ‘just lawyers.’ [On the other hand,] they’re saying they have the ability to overturn what history has designated for all these millennia as a marriage.”


Brockett explains in his book that the only way to change the law of the land is through the Constitution’s Article V, not the court.

“The Court has shown a disrespect for the scheme of the Constitution which requires its change to be by amendment . . . and not by interpretations of clauses in the Constitution or words and phrases created by the Court that are not included in the Constitution in order to serve its own purposes,” he said.

“Those things in the Constitution—people don’t seem to understand this—were put there to guard us against the federal government,” Brockett warned. “They were meant to protect the state governments, because our elected officials are closer to us.”

Brockett thought his book would be well-received by other lawyers and mailed several dozen copies to law professors. “I have sent I don’t know how many books and information about the book to professors, who teach constitutional law in law schools, thinking that they might have an interest in a different opinion,” Brockett explained. “No response.”

Brockett explained why he wrote the book: “I want people to look at it and start a conversation and say, ‘Wait a minute; I disagree for these reasons,’ or ‘Wow, I never thought about it that way before.’ They’ve got to get up off their couches, quit sitting in front of the dumb media, accepting everything they’re being told, get their noses out of their cell phones, quit worrying about whether or not their hair looks good in a ‘selfie,’ and start wondering about whether or not this is the country they want to be in, because they’re going to lose it. The court’s taking it over. The court can now declare anything it wants to as unconstitutional, and people are not going to have much protection when the federal government marches into their state.”

Get this book, before it really is too late.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s “Underground Interview” series.

Hillary Will Throw a Tantrum When She Hears About This

Right now, the team at AMERICAN FREE PRESS newspaper is in the process of assembling and editing a three-volume set of books, featuring hundreds and hundreds of Victor’s very best investigative reports on dozens and dozens of various topics—from energy scams to high-level governmental treason and everything in between.

The three-volume set is estimated to be a total of 600 pages long, each book containing 200 pages of uncensored Victor Thorn! Simply called THORN, this amazing collection of old-fashioned, hard-hitting investigative reporting is how we make Hillary and Bill (and every enemy of the truth) stop their celebration and start quaking again at the mention of Victor Thorn.

Click HERE to view the new website created by AMERICAN FREE PRESS that gives you all of the details.


Plan to Release Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Sparks Serious Concerns Among Health Activists

As if the record of science, government, and health isn’t bad enough, biotech companies have now engineered mosquitoes to carry a death gene that will cause their offspring to die before reaching adulthood. “What can possibly go wrong?” ask those who are skeptical of genetic tinkering and aware of the abysmal failure of establishment claims.

By James Spounias

Genetically engineered (GE) insects are part of the package of solutions that will be foisted upon us per Congress’s $1.1 billion appropriation to fight the well-hyped Zika virus scare.

GE mosquito manipulation has been in the works for a while, spurred by globalist Bill Gates’s foundation gift of $19.7 million to fund the “study” of GE mosquitoes, according to Science Magazine, Nov. 16, 2010.

Zika fear-mongering is helping fuel the coffers of leading biotech “Frank-insect” company Oxitec, which plans to unleash GE insects to fight Zika and other diseases.

But there could be some pushback against the tide of GE mosquitoes, in light of court documents from the Cayman Islands released on Sept. 30, as well as mobilization by residents of Cedar Key and Monroe County, Fla. who will be casting votes on Nov. 8 against the use of GE mosquitos in a ballot initiative.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The Cayman court documents suggest that Oxitec’s use of GE mosquito species Aedes aegypti may be increasing the number of an equally, possibly more virulent disease carrying variety, the Aedes albopictus species—known as the Asian Tiger mosquito—according to four environmental and food safety groups, including International Center for Technology Assessment, GeneWatch UK, Food and Water Watch, and Friends of the Earth.

Food and Water Watch cited independent studies and Oxitec’s own literature that warn 3%-4% of the GE mosquitos survive, “with unknown impacts on the environment,” and that even though Oxitec claims only male mosquitos will be released—intended to be reassuring, because only females bite and spread disease—Oxitec’s own documents reveal that it cannot prevent up to 1% of GE female mosquitos being released.

Food and Water’s other concerns stem from the fact that lab-bred GE mosquitos “can evolve resistance to the lethal gene,” that the bites from female mosquitos could cause allergies, and that “disease transmitted by mosquitos could evolve to become more dangerous.”

Those who value our ecosystem are skeptical of the supposed promise of GE mosquitoes. For instance, Wenonah Hauter of Food and Water Watch company to sell a technology to reduce one mosquito species, so then they can also sell a technology to deal with the species that replaces it . . . but it’s not worth the effort, expense, and potential risk for communities in the U.S. to start down this path.”

The public interest groups also note the risks of using a single species of mosquito are no surprise to Oxitec. The company’s 2014 application to the Cayman Islands Department of Environment states, “Should Aedes albopictus begin to occupy the Aedes aegypti niche upon reduction in their numbers, a concurrent operation will begin to reduce the numbers of Aedes albopictus.”

Dr. Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, stated on Sept. 30: “Current permits for releases should now be revoked until regulators recognize the downsides of Oxitec’s technology and the need to consider all the impacts on the ecosystem. The consequences of mass releases of GE mosquitoes could be harmful if other disease-carrying mosquito species move in as a result. Risk assessments in Brazil, the Cayman Islands, and the USA need to be revised.”

Florida residents are mobilizing against GE mosquitos for many of the same reasons.

Ed Russo of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition, quoted by Bloomberg.com Oct. 6, noted the irony that one needs government permission, by way of an environmental impact statement (EIS), to “take down one tree in a wetland. And these clowns don’t want to do an EIS [for GE mosquito release]. And we’re considered anti-science.”


Russo observed that even prisoners are required to give consent before being subjected to experiments. Mila de Mier, a real estate broker and activist, had to threaten legal action to get the government to provide hard data on the actual number of Aedes aegypti in Key Haven, Fla. She learned there were “practically none,” certainly not enough of the mosquitos even to require the spraying of pesticides, according to Bloomberg.

Ms. Mier stated she and other Florida residents were shocked at what happened in Brazil, where the release of GE mosquitoes wasn’t subjected to scrutiny. Ms. Meier told Bloomberg: “I saw what they did in Brazil. They brought a truck around with a loudspeaker, and they made a song. ‘God sent you the mosquito to heal you.’ That was the public engagement.”

Dr. John Norris, a Florida physician, cited as another basis for concern the fact that the GE mosquitoes are doused with the antibiotic tetracycline, which feeds into the pervasive problem of antibiotic resistance. Norris was quoted by Bloomberg as stating, “The tetracycline is going to cause resistance.

They care nothing about the fact that they are breeding resistant germs of no purpose.” While Oxitec and others dismiss the complaints of citizens and those scientists that are untethered to the corporatist-science establishment, those of us who are well aware of the assault of GMO foods, pesticides, herbicides, electrical pollution, and other problems virtually ignored by the “establishment” are also concerned about the use of GE mosquitoes.

The precise dangers from GE insects are unknown to us, but, given the track record of the usual suspects who notoriously cover up damaging side effects, no amount of speculation as to hazards, let alone malicious use of such technology, is unwarranted.

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

Lame Duck Congress Will Likely Vote on Trans-Pacific Partnership

The massive 12-nation, largely secret, free-trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is expected to be voted upon by Congress during the lame-duck session just after the Nov. 8 general election. Now is the time to renew or start steady calls and letters to Congress. Call 202-224-3121 or 225-3121 and tell your elected officials to oppose TPP.

By Mark Anderson

Even the free-trading New York Times has conceded that the U.S. has a stratospheric annual manufacturing trade deficit of around $800 billion, and that trade deficit is widely expected to worsen if the pending 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade and investment treaty becomes law. Fair, rational, balanced trade will never get a chance to emerge—unless the American people get some traction and disallow final congressional approval of the TPP.


Congress is likely to take up TPP during the lame-duck time “gap” when Capitol Hill shenanigans often intensify, since the pre-election government still operates through the rest of November, much of December, and a couple weeks into January until a new Congress and new president are seated.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Given that situation, newly elected and re-elected officials feel rather “bulletproof” from voter opinion, since any Congress members voted out of office on Nov. 8 no longer fear public blowback, and the re-elected ones are relieved the election has passed. It’s seen as too politically costly to vote on the TPP before Nov. 8. Still, Congress must be watched daily at this point.

President Obama, having served his two terms, would love to add the TPP to his “legacy” list, which includes the Obamacare health-insurance scheme, the Iran nuclear deal, and a record-breaking 10-year, $38 billion aid package to Israel.

Recall that highly controversial votes in Congress have often been carried out around the holidays when voters and even many in Congress are sidetracked. The worst institutional pirate of all time, the private Federal Reserve central bank, was long ago given the “keys to the kingdom”—the concession to control and issue the nation’s money supply—when the Federal Reserve Act was passed two days before Christmas, on Dec. 23, 1913.

A little encouragement: As AFP recently reported, another trade scheme, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—a U.S. trade treaty with the 28-member European Union—is encountering populist pushback in Germany and France. While it’s also worthy of congressional disapproval, it’s not as imminent as TPP.

AFP readers need to treat the defeat of TPP like a mission, akin to ending the Federal Reserve. This defeat would severely weaken TTIP support in Congress and cast doubt on the whole spectrum of trade treaties that are slyly redefined as “partnerships” so the Senate’s constitutional trade-review duties aren’t activated.


A news bulletin from the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), a Washington-based non-profit, non-partisan lobbying outfit, noted that, under existing free-trade pacts such as NAFTA, “Highly competitive manufacturing companies have been lost. Millions of jobs have been destroyed. Our agricultural trade surplus has been eroding. Communities have been hollowed out. The TPP will make these problems worse.”

The CPA added: “Trade negotiators have refused to address the biggest causes of the trade deficits in trade deals. Instead they negotiate trade deals with a hodge-podge of special-interest tariff cuts, regulatory changes and sovereignty giveaways. Congress has failed to set a national goal to fix the trade deficit.”


The fundamental entity behind the TPP, TTIP et al. is the World Trade Organization (WTO). Congress approved WTO membership with its lame-duck December 1994 GATT-WTO vote, which made the U.S. one of the WTO’s charter members.

Economy in Crisis, an Ohio-based non-profit corporation concerned about the depletion of the U.S. industrial base, noted on its website, “By signing the agreement with the World Trade Organization . . .  Congress agreed to concede a major portion of our sovereignty. . . .”

That giveaway includes, according to Economy in Crisis:

  • Conforming U.S. laws, regulations, and administrative procedures to the WTO.
  • Subjecting all federal, state, and local laws and practices that affect trade to WTO reviews.
  • Allowing any WTO member country to challenge U.S. federal, state, and local laws and practices as trade-impeding.
  • Taking all trade disputes to the WTO judiciary, giving the WTO final jurisdiction over all trade altercations. No appeal exists outside of the WTO.
  • Empowering the WTO to enforce its rulings by imposing fines on the U.S.
  • Disallowing Congress to change the agreement.

The WTO is a descendant of the trade regime set up at the Bretton Woods, N.H. conference in 1944. All told, leaving the WTO would be the ideal goal, since WTO membership is a cornerstone of further economic treachery via TPP, TTIP, and similar pacts.

Mark Anderson lives in Michigan and is AFP’s roving editor.

Final Presidential Debate Was Epic

Last night’s presidential debate between between renegade Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was held at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas. For all intents and purposes, this one will likely go down in the history books as one of the most epic debates in modern American history.

By John Friend

The third and final debate, expertly moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News, caps off an incredible campaign season, with both major party candidates generating controversy and unprecedented interest from the general public.

Topics for Wednesday evening’s debate focused on the Supreme Court, the economy, immigration, foreign policy hot spots, and each candidate’s fitness to serve as commander in chief, among other related matters.


The candidates drew clear distinctions between themselves, with Trump emphasizing the populist talking points that have resonated so deeply with the American people since he announced his candidacy over one year ago. The GOP nominee trashed America’s trade deals and argued America’s political leaders have been outmaneuvered, outsmarted, and outplayed by their counterparts.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The debate was relatively calm compared to previous matches until Clinton alleged Russia is engaging in espionage against the United States in an effort to help Trump win the presidency—a contention that has thus far been backed up with little to no evidence.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has constantly attempted to tie Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Mrs. Clinton even insinuated that Trump is a “puppet” of Putin.

“You’re the puppet,” Trump frankly asserted, referring to Mrs. Clinton’s big donors and the elite political and financial interests she serves and represents.

Trump and Mrs. Clinton have both been plagued by scandals throughout the election season, which unsurprisingly came up during the debate. A number of women have come forward alleging Trump has made sexual advances on them following the sensationalized release of a video clip captured while the GOP nominee was making an appearance on a soap opera in 2005. In the widely hyped video, which was recorded without Trump’s knowledge, Trump makes a number of lewd comments about women, which has generated endless coverage, gossip, and debate among the hostile media and political establishment.

Trump has called the recent allegations “fiction” and speculated that the women making them were either seeking fame or were operating under the direction of the “sleazy” Clinton campaign in yet another attempt to discredit the populist GOP nominee.

Mrs. Clinton’s scandals have received far less media coverage despite the seriousness of the charges being leveled against her. Aside from illegally deleting emails when she was secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton has found herself plagued by scandals involving the Clinton Foundation, her actions during the siege of Bengazi, her cozy relationship with many members and institutions of the mainstream corporate media, private speeches she has given to major financial institutions, and the tactics used by members of her presidential campaign.

In previous debates, the moderators failed to truly confront Mrs. Clinton on the many scandals wracking her campaign. Chris Wallace, however, directly asked Mrs. Clinton about many of them, including a speech she made in front of members of Banco Itau where she stated her “dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” demonstrating her subservience to the plutocratic nation wreckers undermining American sovereignty. Mrs. Clinton downplayed her remarks, but Wallace deserves credit for confronting her on the issue.

Trump repeatedly criticized Mrs. Clinton’s public service record, emphasizing her central role in creating the disastrous situation in Syria and the wider Middle East, as conflict, terrorism, and humanitarian crises spiral out of control.


In an unprecedented move, Trump refused to say he would blindly accept the results of the presidential election, which he has long argued is being rigged against him. Trump stated he would assess the situation on election day before accepting the results, and once again hammered the hostile corporate mass media, which has done everything in its power to discredit, smear, and slander the GOP nominee.

“The media is so dishonest and so corrupt and the pile on is so amazing, The New York Times wrote an article about it,” Trump stated during the debate. “They don’t even care, it’s so dishonest, they’ve poisoned the minds of the voters, but unfortunately for them, I think the voters are seeing through it.”

In just under three weeks, we will all know whether or not voters are seeing through the dishonest, corrupt tactics of both the mainstream mass media and the Clinton campaign.

If you’re an American populist, who wishes to see American interests placed first when it comes to both foreign and domestic policy, it could not be clearer who is the better candidate.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.

Western Powers Weaponize Banks to Help Shut Down Alt Media

Recent financial moves targeting a popular alt-news media outlet have some pundits questioning whether U.S., UK, and NATO antagonism toward Russia is spilling over into official acts of silencing alternative media outlets that challenge the pro-war mainstream media narrative, specifically as they relate to the Middle East and North Africa.

By Mark Anderson

To hear “Russia Today” (RT) tell it, it is a distinct possibility that the news organization is being targeted in these tense times of U.S.-UK-NATO saber rattling toward Russia.

But RT is not speaking from a detached journalistic position. Rather, RT itself just became the victim of a sudden, unprecedented move by the National Westminster Bank (NatWest) to cut off banking services with RT. UK government connivance is suspected.


At the time of this writing on the morning of Oct. 17, this does not constitute an actual freezing of RT’s funds at the bank, so the funds evidently could be withdrawn and utilized elsewhere. But the decision did come without a hint of explanation as to why RT will no longer be allowed to be a client of the bank. In a terse letter, the bank told RT to take its money elsewhere, the decision is final, and there will be no discussion. And the UK government is a major client of the same banking group.

“We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities,” NatWest said in a letter to RT’s London office. The bank even said that the entire Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is part, would refuse to service RT. The letter said the decision was final and that the bank is “not prepared to enter into any discussion in relation to it.”

“It appears that . . . we got the first major shot fired by America toward Russia . . . delivered by its always loyal vassal state of the United Kingdom. Russia’s RT television network and media group has seen its bank accounts blocked by the UK,” commented RT editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan in an Oct. 17 Twitter post.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

As reported on RT’s website, she added, “Our accounts in the UK have been closed. All accounts. . . . . Long live freedom of speech!”

Writer John Wight told RT: “It seems more than a coincidence that this has taken place at a time when the anti-Russian propaganda has been ramped up to unprecedented levels.”

In his view: “This reflects the extent to which the West is losing the information war. RT plays a key role in challenging the narrative of the West and Western media when it comes to events in Ukraine, Syria and the Middle East.”

RT is not alone in this. Over the years, historical magazine Barnes Review has been targeted by credit card processors, online banks, and other financial entities in an effort to silence the controversial revisionist institution.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, also quoted by RT, said the situation may indicate that “Britain on its way out of the EU [a reference to the successful June 23 Brexit vote for the UK to divorce the EU] abandoned all its commitments to protect freedom of speech.”

RT’s reports on the developing situation come as Syria, having requested and received Russian protection in its fight against ISIS and other terror groups, is portrayed by U.S., UK, and NATO officials, and by most Western media, as being the chief villain of the Middle East.

Yet it’s clear when U.S. warplanes hit an outpost of Syrian troops recently, the attack strengthened the position of the notorious terrorist factions that are trying to sack Syria. U.S. claims that the airstrike was a mistake are widely disbelieved, amid mounting evidence that ISIS and the other terrorist outfits that have killed and maimed tens of thousands of people in Syria since 2011—while spurring a massive migration of war refugees into Europe—are clandestinely backed by Western intelligence agencies which use the terror groups as insurgents and fodder to facilitate Western and Israeli geo-political and military objectives.


RT, which is state-funded but manages to exercise considerable journalistic latitude, has been among the most influential alternative media outlets poking holes in the Western narrative. And since RT reportedly has a large UK viewership, this likely rankles those running the Western war machine who depend on mainstream media to cast Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad as evil-incarnate bookends.

As of Oct. 17, Ms. Simonyan told the RBK business news website: “We have no idea why it happened, because neither yesterday nor the day before yesterday, nor a month ago, nothing special happened to us, nobody threatened us in any way. Hypothetically, this may have something to do with new British and American sanctions against Russia, which may be announced soon. It may not. Our legal department is dealing with the issue now.”


Shocking Truths About the Afghan War

This month marks the 15th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, making it the longest war in U.S. history, and what do we have to show for it? Tens of thousand of people are dead. A new study estimates American taxpayers have spent $5 trillion on the war. Every year the Taliban controls more of that mountain country.

By Ron Paul

Early October marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. There weren’t any victory parades or photo-ops with Afghanistan’s post-liberation leaders. That is because the war is ongoing. In fact, 15 years after launching a war against Afghanistan’s Taliban government in retaliation for the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S.-backed forces are steadily losing territory back to the Taliban.


What President Barack Obama called “the good war” before took office in 2008, has become the “forgotten war” some eight years later. How many Americans know that we still have nearly 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan? Do any Americans know that the Taliban was never defeated, but now holds more ground in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001? Do they know the Taliban overran the provincial capital of Kunduz in early October for a second time in a year, and they threaten several other provincial capitals?

Do Americans know that we are still wasting billions on “reconstruction” and other projects in Afghanistan that are, at best, boondoggles? According to a recent audit by the independent U.S. government body overseeing Afghan reconstruction, half a billion dollars was wasted on a contract for a U.S. company to maintain Afghan military vehicles. The contractor “fail[ed] to meet program objectives,” the audit found. Of course they still got paid, like thousands of others getting rich off of this failed war.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Do Americans know that their government has spent at least $60 billion to train and equip Afghan security forces, yet these forces are still not capable of fighting on their own against the Taliban? We recently learned that an unknown but not insignificant number of those troops brought to the U.S. for training have deserted and are living illegally somewhere in the U.S. In the recent Taliban attack on Kunduz, it was reported that thousands of Afghan security personnel fled without firing a shot.

According to a recent study by Brown University, the direct costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars thus far are nearly $5 trillion. The indirect costs are virtually incalculable.

Perhaps Afghanistan is the “forgotten war” because to mention it would reveal how schizophrenic is U.S. foreign policy. After all, we have been fighting for 15 years in Afghanistan in the name of defeating al Qaeda, while we are directly and indirectly assisting a franchise of al Qaeda to overthrow the Syrian government. How many Americans would applaud such a foreign policy?

If they only knew, but thanks to a media only interested in promoting Washington’s propaganda, far too many Americans don’t know.


I have written several of these columns on the various anniversaries of the Afghan (and Iraq) wars, pointing out that the wars are ongoing and that the result of the wars has been less stable countries, a less stable region, a devastated local population, and an increasing probability of more blowback.

I would be very happy to never have to write one of these again. We should just march home.

Ron Paul is a former congressman from Texas and presidential candidate. After leaving the House, he founded the Ron Paul Institute.

Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute

ISIS, Not Russia, Is the Enemy in Syria

What is the U.S. even doing in Syria? Does Washington really want to topple Assad’s government and leave the country in total chaos like the West has done to Libya? At this point, the Syrians, Iranians, and Russians are winning. The American public has no stomach for more war. It’s time for the West to call for peace and stop the killing.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Denouncing Russian air strikes on Aleppo as “barbaric,” Mike Pence declared in the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate: “The provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength. … The United States of America should be prepared to use military force, to strike military targets of Bashar Assad regime.”


John McCain went further:

“The U.S. . . . must issue an ultimatum to Mr. Assad—stop flying or lose your aircraft. . . . If Russia continues its indiscriminate bombing, we should make clear that we will take steps to hold its aircraft at greater risk.”

Yet one gets the impression this is bluster and bluff.

Pence has walked his warnings back. And there are few echoes of McCain’s hawkishness. Even Hillary Clinton’s call for a “no-fly zone” has been muted.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The American people have no stomach for a new war in Syria.

Nor does it make sense to expand our enemies list in that bleeding and broken country—from ISIS and the al-Qaeda-linked al Nusra Front—to Syria’s armed forces, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

These last three have been battling to save Assad’s government, because they see vital interests imperiled should it fall.

We have not plunged into Syria, because we have no vital interest at risk in Syria. We have lived with the Assads since Richard Nixon went to Damascus.

President Obama, who has four months left in office, is not going to intervene. And Congress, which has the sole power to declare war, has never authorized a war on Syria.

Obama would be committing an impeachable act if he started shooting down Russian or Syrian planes over Syrian territory. He might also be putting us on the escalator to World War III.

For Russia has moved its S-400 anti-aircraft system into Syria to its air base near Latakia, and its S-300 system to its naval base at Tartus.

As the rebels have no air force, that message is for us.

Russia is also moving its aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, into the Mediterranean. Vladimir Putin is doubling down in Syria.

Last weekend, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned that U.S. attacks in Syria “will lead to terrible tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole.”

Translation: Attack Syria’s air force, and the war you Americans start could encompass the entire Middle East.

Last week, too, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, warned that creating a “no-fly zone” in Syria could mean war—with Russia.

Dunford’s crisp retort to Sen. Roger Wicker:

“Right now, senator, for us to control all of the airspace in Syria it would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia. That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make.”

And neither, thankfully, will Barack Obama.


So, where are we, and how did we get here? Five years ago, Obama declared that Assad must step down. Ignoring him, Assad went all out to crush the rebels, both those we backed and the Islamist terrorists.

Obama then drew a “red line,” declaring that Assad’s supposed use of chemical weapons would lead to U.S. strikes. But when Obama readied military action in 2013, Americans rose up and roared, “No!”

Reading the country right, Congress refused to authorize U.S. military action. Egg all over his face, Obama again backed down.

When Assad began losing the war, Putin stepped in to save his lone Arab ally, and swiftly reversed Assad’s fortunes.

Now, with 10,000 troops—Syrian, Iraqi Shiite militia, Hezbollah, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Afghan mercenaries—poised to attack Aleppo, backed by Russian air power, Assad may be on the cusp of victory in the bloodiest and most decisive battle of the war.

Assad and his allies intend to end this war—by winning it.

For the U.S. to reverse his gains now, and effect his removal, would require the introduction of massive U.S. air power and U.S. troops, and congressional authorization for war in Syria.

The time has come to recognize and accept reality.

While the U.S. and its Turkish, Kurdish and Sunni allies, working with the Assad coalition of Russia, Hezbollah and the Iranians, can crush ISIS and al Qaeda in Syria, we cannot defeat the Assad coalition—not without risking a world war.

And Congress would never authorize such a war, nor would the American people sustain it.

As of today, there is no possibility that the rebels we back could defeat ISIS and the al-Nusra Front, let alone bring down Bashar Assad and run the Russians, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Iraqi Shiite militias out of Syria.

Time to stop the killing, stop the carnage, stop the war, and get the best terms for peace we can get.

For continuing this war, when the prospects of victory are nil, raises its own question of morality.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?


Sex Talk Eclipses Elites’ Push for World War III

During the sexual scandals of former President Bill Clinton—the “bimbo eruptions” as Hillary Clinton called them—the Democrats and progressive opinion ruled out a person’s sex life as a political factor. Now, suddenly, nothing more than juvenile locker room banter without the actual sex has become the determinant of political unfitness.

By Paul Craig Roberts

The following questions must asked: Where did the 11-year old recording of locker room talk between Donald Trump and Billy Bush come from? Who recorded it and kept it for 11 years for what purpose? Why was it released the day prior to the second debate between Trump and Hillary? Was the recording an illegal violation of privacy? What became of the woman who recorded Monica Lewinsky’s confession to her of sex with Bill Clinton? Wasn’t she prosecuted for wiretaping or some such offense? Why was Billy Bush, the relative of two US presidents, suspended from his TV show because of a private conversation with Trump?


You have to take men’s sexual banter with a grain of salt, just as you do their fish stories. President or candidate Bill Clinton himself publicly engaged in sexual banter. If memory serves, in a speech to blue collar workers, Bill said that the bed of his pickup truck was covered in artificial turf and “you know what that was for.” In the Clinton White House according to reports there were a number of female interns seeking Bill’s sexual attention. The scantily clad young women came to work sans underwear until Hillary put her foot down. One wonders if the Secret Service was told to inspect compliance with the dress code.

The One Percent masquerading as prudes want to remove Trump as the Republican candidate. Just how the people’s choice of presidential candidate is removed in a democracy prior to election, the prudes do not say. No one wanted to remove Clinton from the presidency despite the sexual use of the Oval Office, called at the time the “Oral Orifice.” The House Republicans wanted to remove Clinton not for sex but for lying about it, but the Senate would not go along with it. As senators all lied about their sexual liaisons, they saw no harm in it.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

What disturbs me about the importance attributed to Trump’s sexual banter is that we have in front of us the dangerous situation of the neoconservatives pushing for Washington to attack Syrian and Russian forces in Syria and the chief Washington propagandist, neocon Carl Gershman, calling publicly for the US to “summon the will” to bring regime change to Russia. The tensions between the two nuclear powers are currently at all time highs, and this dangerous situation is not a factor in the US presidential election! And some people wonder why I call Americans insouciant.

The U.S. media, 90% owned by the One Percent, have teamed up with their owners against the American people—the 995. As Trump observed during the second presidential “debate,” ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper teamed up with Hillary against him: “Nice, three on one,” Trump said.

Do the 99% understand that the anti-Trump hysteria fanned by the presstitutes is intended to keep the people in economic bondage and at war?

We all know that the hysteria over the Trump-Billy Bush locker room banter is orchestrated for political purposes. But consider the absurdity of it all. Trump’s private expression of sexual interest in an attractive member of the opposite sex has been declared by the presstitutes to be “extremely lewd comments about women.”

Is what is going on here the criminalization of heterosexual sex?

Feminist say that women do not want to be regarded as sex objects, but much of womankind disagrees, judging by the provocative way some of them dress. Clothes designers, assuming they are good judges of the apparal market for women, also disagree. At the latest Paris fashion show (October 1) Vivienne Westwood displayed a dress on which the female sexual organs are displayed on the dress.

Vivienne Westwood is a woman, a British fashion designer. She has twice earned the award for British Designer of the Year. The Queen of England awarded her the aristocratic title of Dame Commander of the British Empire (DBE) “for services to fashion.”

At a ceremony honoring her at Buckingham Palace, Westwood appeared without panties and twirled her skirt in the courtyard of the palace. Photographers caught the event, and in Vivienne’s words, “the result was more glamourous than I expected.”

As recently as 2012, Vivienne was chosen by a panel of academics, historians, and journalists as one of The New Elizabethans who have had a major impact on the UK and given this age its character.

In 18th century England, if historians are correct, young women would appear at evening social functions in wet gowns that clung to their bodies the better to indicate their charms. Some of them died of pneumonia as a consequence. They did this on their own accord to attract the attention of the opposite sex.


According to reports, robotic sexual partners are being created for men and women that are superior to the real thing. Other news reports are that young Japanese men go on vacation with their sex apps, not with girlfriends. There are indications that as the advancement in social approval of homosexual, lesbian, and transgendered sex progresses, heterosexual sex is acquiring the designation of queer. If Trump had expressed sexual interest in a male or a transgendered person, it would be politically incorrect to mention it. Only heterosexual sexual impulses are a political target.

We have reached that point in which women can appear in high heels with skirts that barely cover their nether parts and their braless breasts exposed, and men are lewd if they notice.

Do women really want it this way?

Is Hillary really going to win the election because Trump is sexually interested in women?

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of The Wall Street Journal. He was columnist forBusinessWeek, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are How AMERICA Was LOST: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State and The NEOCONSERVATIVE THREAT to WORLD ORDER: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony.