Maryland Sheriff Vows to Resist Tyranny

A popular law enforcement officer in Maryland recently sat down with AFP to talk about his renewed hope, since the election of billionaire populist businessman Donald Trump on Nov. 8, that the current anti-cop attitude that has taken over most major cities across the U.S. will change, at least when it comes to the man in the White House.

By Dave Gahary

Tucked away in the southernmost part of Maryland lies Somerset County—population around 26,500—where the unemployment is very high, drugs are a problem, and the biggest employer in the county is the Eastern Correctional Institution, Maryland’s largest prison. It’s also the county where Sheriff Ronnie Howard serves as the only elected law enforcement officer.

Howard, a life-long resident of Somerset County, sat down with AMERICAN FREE PRESS to discuss the county, his residents’ concerns, the Second Amendment, the war on police, the mainstream media, Donald Trump, and other matters.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Howard, who’s been married for 29 years and has two kids in college, entered the ranks of the Maryland State Police in 1982 and retired from there in 2008. He spent the majority of his career working road patrol and finished up as a criminal investigator. After retirement he joined the ranks of the sheriff’s office as a road deputy and was elected sheriff in 2014.

The county, which is predominantly a commercial fishery and agriculture-based community, is 54% white and 42% black, with a small (around 2-3%) Hispanic population that’s slowly growing.

The county has over three times the nationwide percentage of blacks.

“A lot of the African-Americans that live here in the county are life-long residents,” he said. “We don’t have the problems that other parts of the country may have.”

AFP asked if there was any racial strife in the county.

“None of that at all—none of it,” Howard said.

“After the officers in Dallas were executed,” he continued, “I had the president of the NAACP come to me and say, ‘Sheriff, I want to apologize for what happened. That was so horrific and so uncalled for.’”

A particularly savage crime that occurred last month in the county reminded the sheriff why he’s behind the right to bear arms.

“The attacker had used a hammer to repeatedly strike a mother and two children in their beds,” he told AFP. “The children were still asleep while they were being attacked. The mother fought briefly before she was overcome by it. All of them are in very critical condition.

“We get quite a few peace orders and protective orders here at the sheriff’s office,” he continued, “and I’ve always said a peace order and protective order is a piece of paper. That is not gonna protect somebody. That’s why I’m such a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment.”

Outgoing President Barack Hussein Obama’s attack on the Second Amendment just doesn’t have the sheriff worried.

“That is one of the hot-button issues of a lot of residents here in the county,” he told AFP. “They’ll come up and say, ‘Sheriff, if President Obama ever institutes martial law, will you obey it?’ ‘No, I won’t.’ ‘Will you support any action or efforts to confiscate our guns?’ ‘Absolutely not.’

“Our founding fathers put the Second Amendment in there for a reason,” he explained, “and that’s to protect us from invaders and also from our own government if it ever comes to that.”

“It’s a rural county. A lot of people have firearms for protection, and a vast majority of people in this county love to duck hunt and deer hunt,” he said. “It would be a catastrophe if the federal government ever came in here and tried to confiscate firearms. The county residents wouldn’t go for it.”

AFP asked if he felt the residents would fight back.

“I’m sure they would resist. There’s no doubt in my mind,” he said.

“The tyranny that we could face today is no different than the tyranny our forefathers faced when they were fighting the revolution,” he said. “No different.”

AFP asked if he fears a federal government gun grab.

“I supported President Trump,” he said. “I voted for him. With him being in there I don’t see any efforts to take firearms from people.

“My feeling is there are enough firearms laws on the books,” he continued. “Enforce the laws that are on the books now. We don’t need to make more. Your law-abiding citizens are not gonna go out here and commit gun violence. Your thugs are the ones who are gonna break into houses or stores and take firearms. They’re the ones that need to be prosecuted, not law-abiding citizens.”


AFP asked how big of a problem the elite media is.

“The elite media—I have a lot of big issues with,” he answered. “During the presidential campaign they were trying to crucify President-elect Trump for every little thing he would say or do. One of the big issues I had with Secretary Clinton was her email server, and she was given a pass on that.”

AFP asked if he was relieved when he heard that Trump won.

“I was, very relieved,” he said. “I was concerned that if Clinton got in, she would make an attempt to go after the Second Amendment. Another reason I was relieved was who knows who she would’ve picked for the Supreme Court, and also for her stance on abortion. I do not, can not, nor will ever support abortion. When she says a child that is still in the womb has no constitutional rights, I’ve got a problem with that. She says, ‘We must protect children and outlaw firearms.’ What about the children in the womb? Don’t they have rights?”

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

Still No Evidence Russia Was Behind Cybercrimes

Don’t believe all of the hype surrounding the newly released cybercrimes report by federal law enforcement that supposedly provides details on the Russian connection to criminal hacking. There is still no evidence that Russian spies or the military were behind breaking into the email accounts of Democrats and/or U.S. electoral systems.

By Sydney Johnson

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report yesterday, purportedly providing details and even evidence that Russian intelligence was behind the hacking of top Democrat officials and the U.S. electoral board. The Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity” is available to read here.

After getting busted for lying to the American public about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, you would think that Washington officials would be on guard against making unsubstantiated claims concerning foreign powers. However, upon reading the latest JAR—it is only 13 pages—it is clear that the White House is blaming Russia with zero evidence that Russian officials were linked to the computer crimes. Worse still, President Barack Obama has imposed economic sanctions on Russia and ordered dozens of Russian diplomats to leave the country—all on the presumption that we should just trust what U.S. authorities claim.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

It is common knowledge that all countries spy on each other, and it would be grossly naïve to deny that countries, including Russia, hack into computer systems maintained by foreign powers.

The U.S. is particularly bad when it comes to snooping on foreign officials, even so-called friends and allies. This was exposed in 2013 when American intelligence officials were embarrassed after Edward Snowden released official documents taken from the National Security Agency that showed the federal agency spied on everything and everyone, even going so far as to steal medical records from international nongovernmental agencies so U.S. officials could snoop on foreigners.

The U.S. media has been in a tizzy these past 24 hours, breathlessly reporting that the JAR laid out the U.S. government’s evidence that the Russians were behind the hacking.

The Hill, a Washington, D.C. daily, at least noted that “security experts say that the document provides little in the way of forensic ‘proof’ to confirm the government’s attribution.” However, the daily amended that, adding: “Private security firms—like CrowdStrike, who investigated the DNC breach—went much further, they say.”

The claim is that the Russian government is somehow and in some way linked to the two supposedly sophisticated groups—APT28 and APT29—that, among other things, installed malware and then conned top Democrats like Clinton campaign advisor John Podesta into turning over passwords. But these purportedly highly sophisticated groups were then stupid enough to leave bread crumbs back to a Russian server, implicating themselves in the crimes?

AFP recently interviewed the owner of one of those servers. He said that he had tracked IP addresses to Europe, but no one in the U.S. was interested in his information.

The truth is, there is still nothing linking the Russian government or any of its military or intelligence agencies to the hackers who leaked damning emails revealing that the Democratic Party had conspired to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) in favor of Hillary Clinton.


Those who claim that the JAR proves Russian hacking likely either never read it or, if they did take the few minutes to look through it, did not understand it.

You would think that, by now, most in the mainstream media would be skeptical when their government simply states, “Hey, you’ve got to trust us.”

Sadly, however, this is not the case.

Sydney Johnson is a reporter who lives in Washington, D.C.

Son of Famed CIA Legend Speaks About Murder, Conspiracy

Author Saint John Hunt sets the record straight on a few major conspiracies that occurred in the late 20th century, including the infamous Watergate scandal as well as the assassination of his mother, Dorothy, who was a high-level spy in the Central Intelligence Agency and had access to national secrets that may have cost her life.

By Dave Gahary

It’s a plot made just for the movies: Unbeknownst to you, both of your parents are spies. You move around the world every few years to exotic locales, live in mansions appointed with servants, attend private schools, and money is never a problem. Your parents get sucked into a scheme that involves the most powerful man in the world, leading to everything you know and love unraveling and crashing apart. Your mother is killed in a suspicious plane crash, and your father is sent to prison.

It may sound like one of Hollywood’s more preposterous plots, but it’s not. This is what really happened to Saint John Hunt, son of E. Howard Hunt, the man who engineered the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on the sixth floor of the Watergate Hotel and Office Building.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Hunt, the author of Bond of Secrecy: My Life with CIA Spy and Watergate Conspirator E. Howard Hunt, has a new book out, this time about his mother, called Dorothy: The Murder of E. Howard Hunt’s Wife—Watergate’s Darkest Secret. AMERICAN FREE PRESS sat down with Saint John to discuss his new book.

“My father and mother were both in the OSS in a very early point in the OSS’s history,” he began.

The OSS, Office of Strategic Services, was a World War II intelligence agency created to conduct espionage activities behind enemy lines, employing propaganda and subversion. It was the predecessor to the CIA.

“When the OSS disbanded after World War II,” he continued, “[my father] joined up right away with the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency.”

“My mother was in OSS briefly,” he told AFP. “It was in 1944, and she had been stationed at Bern, Switzerland. Her boss was Allen Dulles, who was station chief in Bern. She worked under Operation Safe Haven, and the object of that office was to track Nazi gold across Europe, art objects, the things they had stolen and looted.”

Although Saint John’s first book details how his father rose through the ranks of the CIA to mastermind the “successful” 1954 Guatemala coup and the “failed” Bay of Pigs invasion, his new book focuses on his mother and her fateful involvement in the Watergate scandal.

“My father stayed with the CIA for 27 years and upon his false retirement in 1970 he joined up with the Nixon White House,” he explained.

“Nixon was looking for an intelligence gathering group of men he could rely on to undertake whatever operations he thought would benefit his reelection.”

Saint John’s father put together a team with some of the Cuban exiles who were involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and on Saturday, June 17, 1972, five of them were arrested breaking and entering into DNC headquarters at Watergate. The trail led back to E. Howard Hunt.

“My father and my mother were called blackmailers,” Saint John explained, “because they were demanding large amounts of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars, not only to keep quiet but to help support the families of the Cubans who had been arrested, and also to keep them quiet. This went fine for a while, but when Nixon got re-elected he wasn’t quite so worried anymore, and the flow of money stopped.”

Abandoned by the White House after Nixon promised clemency and under intense pressure to protect themselves and their family, Saint John’s mother decided to take evidence her husband had on Nixon’s misdeeds and call a press conference. On Dec. 8, 1972, she boarded United Airlines Flight 553 in D.C. to Chicago, but never made it there. The plane crashed.

“The press conference never happened,” said Saint John. “The plane crashed and the National Transportation Safety Board ruled it was pilot error. But there were many, many, many suspicious things about that plane crash that just did not add up.”


Saint John believes the plane was brought down on purpose.

“All our phones had been bugged for a couple months by that point, and we were being followed everywhere,” Saint John told AFP. “They knew my mother had called the White House and made a direct threat to ‘blow the White House out of the water,’ and my father backed that threat up.”

For those students of American politics in general and Watergate in particular, this book—and his earlier one—are must-reads.

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

Grinches at VA Hand Out Fat Bonuses While Vets Starve, Go Homeless

AFP recently sat down to talk with veterans’ rights attorney Ben Krause for a lengthy conversation about the state of veterans in America today. Krause singled out the out-of-control VA, which pays hundreds of millions in salary bonuses every year to executives but can’t take care of the men and women who have served our country.

By Dave Gahary

About a week before the historic presidential election of Donald J. Trump, it was revealed that almost 189,000 employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) were granted more than $177 million in bonuses for 2015. Out of those bonuses doled out to employees of the troubled agency, more than 300 senior executives received $3.3 million in bonuses—a $10,000 average payout—and non-executives received about a $900 average payout.


Listen to AFP’s exlusive interview with veterans rights attorney Benjamin Krause below:


To gain more insight into the out-of-control VA and how Trump may rein them in, AMERICAN FREE PRESS conducted an exclusive interview with Minnesota-based veteran rights attorney and activist Benjamin Krause. Krause served in the U.S. Air Force. The struggles he experienced while attempting to use his benefits after his discharge led him to dedicate his life to assisting fellow veterans navigate the treacherous waters of the VA.

“I experienced a non-combat related traumatic brain injury and after getting out of the military had all kinds of problems getting work and keeping work,” Krause explained to AFP.

“They found out that I had a traumatic brain injury, for which the VA wasn’t giving me rehabilitative treatment,” Krause continued. “As a result of that, I started pushing back against the VA to get help and support and realized that the primary veteran service organization community lacked the will or desire to stand up for veterans like me who were being abused or not getting the help that we deserve. So I eventually became an attorney and started exposing stories, scandals, and corruption.”

Krause educates veterans through his website, “”

He explained his ultimate goal: “I’m hoping to challenge the VA very publicly by encouraging dissent and by encouraging them to drop the curtain a little bit so we can better see that they are an insurance company.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

“They used to be called the Bureau of War Risk Insurance before they realized that sounded bad, and then they changed the name. I think it’s important that people understand that history before they go to the VA for help, thinking the VA is going to be their mother, and then get slapped in the face. It’s really Allstate or Prudential behind the curtain.”

AFP asked how the VA can rationalize giving these bonuses.

“I can’t think of one reason why I would ever give anyone a bonus when that person is linked to negligently causing deaths of veterans,” Krause said.

Krause was alluding to Dr. Darren Deering, the fired chief of staff of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, who was paid a $5,000 bonus after several veterans died while waiting for care.

Krause addressed the larger question of bonuses for federal employees.

“A person needs to stop and think whether federal employees should be getting bonuses to begin with,” he said. “You end up with smarter bureaucrats that know how to game the system to increase their bonuses, but a lot of times that comes at the expense of veterans. And as we know, within the VA, they lack accountability. This ends up resulting in no accountability for anyone caught committing fraud. In addition, veterans tend to die before anyone will pay attention to the fraud that is going on.”

Krause went on to discuss what happened in Phoenix.

“This particular scandal at Phoenix had been ongoing since at least the ‘90s, and it had been a nationwide problem,” he said. “But it took a bunch of veterans dying and CNN catching wind of it before the government and the VA suddenly developed the political will to evaluate it—and even then they covered it up.”

What happened next shocked even critics of the VA.


“[Sloan Gibson IV] immediately shut down the Office of the Medical Inspector, which resulted in all of the investigations being shunted back to each location,” he said. “[As a result of this] there wasn’t that consolidated review that you would get from the Office of the Medical Inspector.”

Gibson is the current deputy secretary of Veterans Affairs. He became the acting secretary of Veterans Affairs after Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned and held the acting secretary and deputy secretary positions concurrently until Robert McDonald was sworn in as the secretary on July 30, 2014.

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

Was Australia Hit with Biowarfare or Whacky Weather?

Recently, Australia suffered from a strange occurrence, which sent thousands of people to the hospital. The media was quick to blame the outbreak on unusual weather, but others were not convinced. Pointing to the fact that the event came and went so rapidly, conspiracy theorists argued that something far more sinister had to have been involved.

By James Spounias

In what can best be described as something out of a science-fiction movie, “thunderstorm asthma” reportedly killed at least eight people and sent thousands to hospitals in Melbourne and other parts of Victoria, Australia on Nov. 21. Melbourne is Australia’s second largest city, with a population of 4.4 million, including surrounding areas and suburbs.

Thunderstorm asthma is considered a freak illness “when a storm hits hard during a period of high pollen and high humidity, causing (pollen) grains to break up and disperse, entering people’s lungs and making it hard for them to breathe,” according to Melbourne Ten Eyewitness News.

The city’s emergency rooms were packed with 8,500 ill people, 1,900 emergency calls were placed, and pharmacies were jammed during six hours.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Though thunderstorm asthma has been reported a few times in locations with sub-tropical climates, nothing on this scale has ever occurred.

Jill Hennessy, Victoria’s minister for health and ambulance service, was quoted in The New York Times as saying, “This was a health emergency of an unprecedented scale.”

On Nov. 25, The Sydney Morning Herald quoted Hennessy as stating: “When we have one bomb go off, we know what we’re dealing with. When we’ve had people calling for ambulances—one call every four-and-a-half seconds at the peak—it was like having 150 bombs going off right across a particular part of metropolitan Melbourne. And that’s something we’ve never really planned for.”

A Nov. 26 headline in The Guardian reads, “Thunderstorm asthma: ‘you’re talking an event equivalent to a terrorist attack.’ ”

The story linked this deadly occurrence to “climate change.”

Some so-called conspiracy-bloggers, however, quickly reported that the mainstream news accounts of thunderstorm asthma as the cause of this event are bogus, and that the likely culprit is biowarfare weaponry.

It’s difficult to know which is true, given the record of establishment lies and experimentation, let alone the opportunistic link to “climate change.”

Conspiracy researchers can be wrong, of course, or they may have been planted by the powers-that-be to spread disinformation to keep the public confused, as was encouraged by Cass Sunstein, former “information czar” under outgoing President Barack Obama.

Sunstein wrote in a position paper that one way to deal with conspiracies is to engage in “cognitive infiltration” in order to bring “cognitive diversity”; that is, the deliberate spreading of lies by covert government operatives to make so-called conspiracies (i.e., the real ones) less credible.


If thunderstorm asthma or similar phenomena re-occur, it behooves those who dig deeply into these subjects to explore all possibilities.

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

Owner of Servers Implicated in DNC Hacks Says No One Is Interested in Truth Behind Computer Crimes

The mainstream media argues with no real evidence that the Russian government has been behind computer hacking targeting top Democrats and U.S. elections systems. However, the man who runs the servers implicated in the crime said no U.S. law enforcement or intel agency is interested in speaking with him to gather evidence on the perpetrators.

By John Friend

Vladimir Fomenko, the 26-year-old owner of King Servers, a Russian-based web server company that has been alleged to have been involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee and computerized election systems in both Arizona and Illinois, recently spoke to American Free Press in an effort to demystify the controversy surrounding his company and cyberattacks purportedly carried out at the behest of the Russian government.

In addition to the United States, hackers that broke into King Servers have also been alleged to have targeted other foreign countries, including Germany, Turkey, and Ukraine, in an attempt to undermine democratic processes.

When WikiLeaks began releasing hacked data from the DNC late this summer, media reports and the Clinton campaign almost immediately began blaming the Russian government with virtually no solid evidence to support such conclusions. In August, the FBI released eight IP addresses used in targeting the computerized voting systems in major U.S. states, while ThreatConnect, a private company that aggregates and analyzes cyberthreats, identified six of the eight IPs as being directly connected to Fomenko’s web-hosting company, King Servers. The hackers apparently used the servers they rented from Fomenko to hack the voting systems without his knowledge, he explained to AFP.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

“Unfortunately, the criminals partially used our servers behind our back, indeed,” Fomenko stated. “But the FBI claims that the attacks were made from eight addresses, and part of them apparently belong to other European companies.”

After learning about the criminal activity, Fomenko immediately shut down the servers and investigated the situation to the best of his ability. He also contends he is willing to cooperate with law enforcement officials.

“Web hosting is a legal enterprise that is regulated by law,” Fomenko explained. “King Servers works in Russia, the U.S., and the Netherlands and complies with the laws of these countries.”

Once he learned that clients were using his servers to hack into computer systems, Fomenko said he looked into it himself.

Fomenko added: “We pursued an investigation without delay and found some tracks leading to Europe. The criminals had European IPs. We offered assistance to law enforcement, but we haven’t received any responses. I believe the information we have would help to find the criminals, if law enforcement were interested in it. Much time has been wasted, and it is probably too late to look for the criminals now, but we are still ready to assist.”

Revealingly, no law enforcement officials have contacted Fomenko.

“No U.S. law enforcement agency has contacted us at this time. Neither the FBI nor any other U.S., Russian, or Dutch intelligence agency has contacted us,” Fomenko explained. “After addressing the situation comprehensively, I came to the conclusion: Did the attacks take place or was it a part of a plan of unknown public relations persons? If the agencies were willing to know who was behind all of this, they could get the necessary server information by contacting the Dutch police. They could do that if they needed facts, but there is a problem with facts and evidence in this story.”

Politics and the presidential election obviously played a major role in all of this, Fomenko contends. The Clinton campaign, Democrat leaders, anti-Trump partisans, and the fake news media have baselessly blamed the Russian government for the hacks in an attempt to undermine American democracy and help get Trump into the White House.

Citing Fomenko’s Russian-based company as the entity that at least partially facilitated the attacks was merely a dishonest way of implicating the entire Russian government in a criminal conspiracy, without providing legitimate evidence or proof.


Fomenko doubts Russia, or any other world-power for that matter, would risk engaging in this type of obvious criminal activity.

“Russia has one of the best schools for programmers,” Fomenko noted. “Do you think if Russia were behind the attacks, hackers working for the Russian government wouldn’t cover their tracks?”

Russian officials have strongly denied any involvement in the hacks, with one Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, calling them “so absurd it borders on total stupidity,” according to Russia Today.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of the most hysterically maligned world leaders today, has repeatedly stated that blaming Russia for the attacks is a crass way of directing public attention away from the outrageous corruption and criminality exposed by the leaks.

Fomenko argues that hackers are criminals who lack a nationality and that the threat they pose must be countered through cooperation and honest investigations on an international level. Jumping to conclusions for political purposes has not helped the situation, Fomenko contends.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.

America’s Toughest Sheriff: Arpaio Uncensored With AFP

On Nov. 8, America’s toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio, lost his re-election bid. However, at a young 84 years old, the seasoned lawman says he has no plans to slow down any time soon. AFP recently sat down with Arpaio to discuss his plans for the future, which include furthering his investigation into Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

By Mark Anderson

PHOENIX, Ariz.—Sheriff Joseph Michael “Joe” Arpaio’s accomplishments prove he’s the kind of man every thinking citizen would want as the top law enforcement officer of their community. Yet he has been forced to face down lawsuit after lawsuit brought by well-funded “civil rights” groups and the federal government—all because he is an honest lawman, who has only sought to protect his county.

AFP recently had the chance to sit down with “America’s toughest sheriff” to discuss, among other things, what he plans to do since he lost the election on Nov. 8. His last official day as sheriff is Dec. 31, and, at 84, Arpaio plans to end his front-lines law enforcement career, but he is not backing down and has been quite vocal about the most important issues facing this country.

In most mainstream press accounts on Arpaio, what’s typically absent is that the sheriff has spent a lifetime in public service. He volunteered for the Korean War with the U.S. Army and was an innovative and effective Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent. In that federal role, he undertook difficult and often dangerous jobs overseas early in his career. His ensuing DEA accomplishments would later have a profound effect on his 24 years in local law enforcement as head of the nation’s third-largest sheriff’s department, located in Maricopa County, Ariz., a large county that boasts the state capital of Phoenix as its seat.

Long before Arpaio became known as “the toughest sheriff in America”—a title ironically minted by the often-hostile corporate media—he had already established a stellar law enforcement career.

In order to be a pro-active, effective crime fighter, Arpaio was stationed in foreign countries where he headed DEA operations to combat the drug trade in areas that, even by today’s standards, are highly volatile, including Turkey, the Middle East, Mexico, and Central and South America. Interestingly, he was also a diplomatic attaché.

It was during those DEA years that Arpaio gained valuable expertise on border issues and related enforcement, including in the border states of Arizona and Texas.

Under his leadership as sheriff, Arpaio’s office covered a lot of ground, having built “two new jails, a sheriff’s academy, a food factory, a firearms range, and the first headquarters in the organization’s history, equipped with a state-of-the-art 911 center unrivaled by any in the country,” according to Arpaio’s media liaison.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

First elected in 1992, Arpaio’s nearly quarter-century at the helm made him the longest-serving elected sheriff in Maricopa County’s history. He consistently earned high public approval ratings on the job. Arpaio maintains the following credo that has been the basis of his overall 55 years in law enforcement: “The only real boss I have is the public.”

AFP caught up with the busy lawman for an exclusive interview on Dec. 8, one month after he lost his re-election effort to serve a seventh four-year term. Former Phoenix Police Department Sgt. Paul Penzone, 49, reportedly won the election with 56% of the vote, to Arpaio’s 44%.

In the on-the-record interview with AFP (supplemented by an unrecorded get-acquainted interview Dec. 7) AFP asked whether Penzone will carry on the policies that had been established under Arpaio’s leadership, especially the effective efforts toward improved border security.

“I’m not going to comment. . . . I’m not the sheriff anymore,” the still-energetic 84-year-old lawman replied. “I will stand by [and I’m] very proud of what was accomplished in 24 years. . . .”

And while saying, “I’m not going to go away,” just before this AFP edition went to press, he announced that his well-known research into President Obama’s long-form birth certificate—which states that the 44th president was born in Hawaii, but which Arpaio maintains is a forgery—was to be covered again by Arpaio at a Dec. 15 press conference intended to shed new light on the contentious matter.

Furthermore, Arpaio plans on hitting the lecture circuit to keep the issue of border security front and center, among other key topics.

“I will be speaking about what I have done and . . . on what should happen in the future,” he said, “especially when you deal with politics and law enforcement.”


“I was one of probably two agents under the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics—you know, I go way back to 1957—that served in foreign countries. Actually, I went to the ‘hot spot,’ which was Turkey and the Middle East, to stop the flow of drugs from that area going into France and then into the United States, [all of which was] controlled by the mafia,” Arpaio stated about his DEA days. “That was the big heroin problem we’d had for 35 years.”

That international heroin route was choked off effectively, proving that Arpaio’s approach then was the proper one—an approach that should be reinstated.

“So the concept was, and still should be, that the way of solving the problem [is] you stop it overseas before it gets to our border,” Arpaio stressed. “If it doesn’t get to our border, we don’t have any problem with the drugs . . . being used by our young people, with this heroin epidemic that we have presently.”

However, during his time as sheriff, just 30 miles from the U.S. border with Mexico, he didn’t have the authority to cross the border to get things done, unlike the situation during his DEA days.

“Everybody discouraged me from going across the border to meet the president of Mexico because of the danger and ‘hits’ on me,” he said. “So I stick with the philosophy—you stop [drugs] in a foreign country, and if it does get across the border, you lock [the traffickers] up, throw them in jail, and also crack down on the drug traffic on the street level.”

That’s because the smaller dope peddlers on the streets frequently duck law enforcement, Arpaio explained. He further recommended a renewed cooperation between U.S. and Mexican government agencies in order to reduce the human trafficking, which, he says, is directly tied to the drug trade, since many ordinary Mexicans illegally entering the U.S. to escape domestic regional violence and find work on U.S. farms and elsewhere are exploited by the drug cartels as “mules” to smuggle drugs into the U.S.

“It’s not just illegal immigration,” Arpaio continued, stressing that many people, especially decision-makers, fail to firmly link commonplace illegal immigration with the drug trade. “So when all these politicians run down to the fence and get their picture taken, they’re always talking about illegal immigration. You would think they might throw in, ‘Let’s stop the drug problem.’ ”


American Free Press asked about current sources of heroin and other drugs.

“The majority of the drugs today—guess what—come from Mexico . . . . And when we cracked down on methamphetamine [production] in this country, who picked up the slack? It’s Mexico,” said Arpaio.

In that vein, Arpaio believes that any country that’s a part of the conduit of trafficking drugs and people into the U.S. should have its foreign-aid money withheld until the country cooperates with the U.S. in solving the overall problem. If the U.S. is so bent on spending billions to send its troops to lead coalitions to fight terrorism in distant lands, then U.S. and Mexican military cooperation is long overdue to stop drug-related terrorism right at the U.S. doorstep, he added.

Speaking of his time as a federal officer working against the drug trade on the Mexican side of the border, he recalled: “When I was over there, we worked with the Mexican army—in fact, I worked very closely with them and the federal police on the streets. . . . My point was, at least let’s try to get the U.S. Border Patrol across the border like my agents were across the border during operations.”

He summarized: “I don’t know why that’s a big deal when we’ve got [the] military in foreign countries, helping fight terrorism and other situations. Why can’t we do that here? I know it’s controversial, but it can be done.”


“I’m very happy Donald Trump is the president . . . and I’m happy that I supported him from day one,” Arpaio told AFP.

Arpaio is confident that the election of Trump will bring significant changes in terms of building the rest of the border fence, while spurring other technological and manpower changes to enhance border security and also improve the U.S. economy, among other goals that the populist businessman has announced.

Arpaio also acknowledged that dissolving the NAFTA trade treaty—since such a move likely would improve the Mexican economy—could reduce the incentive for illegal migration into the U.S.

“Maybe [Trump] can make a deal. . . . I’m very proud that he got in to meet the Mexican president, so things can be done if you really want to do them,” Arpaio said. “[We have] the greatest country in the world and you’re trying to tell me that we can’t stop the drug traffic coming in from a bordering country?”

He continued: “We can do it if we have the will to do it, and it was done under President Nixon and I lived under that [when] he said we’re going to stop this international heroin traffic . . .  involving the Middle East, France, Mexico, and our country. [It] was stopped. There was no more heroin.”

Anticipating better times, Arpaio mentioned the Trump transition team’s nomination of retired four-star Marine Gen. John F. Kelly as Department of Homeland Security secretary. Arpaio also likes Trump’s nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a former Alabama attorney general, for the nation’s AG post.

“I didn’t put my name out, but according to the news media, I was in the running for that [AG] job,” Arpaio remarked.  “But I am very happy that Kelly has that [DHS] job, because he has foreign experience and has been involved in [facing] the drug problem.”

Kelly also has confronted immigration issues.


Meanwhile, Arpaio is on the receiving end of a federal misdemeanor charge, stemming from his department’s successful implementation of the “287(g)” program from 2007 to 2009.

Under the program, 150 of Arpaio’s deputies were trained and sworn in, having been given the authority, just like federal immigration officers are empowered, to arrest those who are in the U.S. illegally. Hundreds of “illegals” were arrested, processed, and turned over to federal authorities, although the feds’ deportations were so incomplete that nearly 40% of them would be repeatedly arrested by Arpaio’s department. One man returned 24 times.

“That [program] was taken away from me because I think we did too good of a job. . . . Of course, it caused me political and other problems, but it was worth it,” Arpaio reflected.


In what started as a lesser “racial profiling” matter over Arpaio’s 287(g) operation, a federal judge referred Arpaio to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for possible criminal prosecution on contempt-of-court charges, a misdemeanor, due to the sheriff’s office’s alleged failure to comply with the court’s order to stop its “racial profiling” practices. Arpaio’s initial Dec. 6 federal trial date in Phoenix was postponed until April 2017.

Undaunted, Arpaio added, “I think we ought to reinstate that program because we do have other federal agencies that go to local and state authorities. . . . [The feds] can’t do the job alone and nobody has complained about local [law enforcement] arresting the gun dealers and drug dealers and helping the feds,” Arpaio said. “Why is it such a controversy when we go one step further and help the feds with illegal immigration?”

Under the Trump administration, “I’m sure there will be a big change on fighting crime, the war on cops, immigration, drugs, terrorism, and I can go on and on. It sure can’t get any worse than it has been under [President] Obama and other high officials.”


Perhaps unsurprisingly, notorious billionaire activist George Soros—arguably the most malicious elitist of our time—helped block Arpaio’s re-election.

Soros’s hand in this matter became clear “when there’s 30 days to go, with early voting, and [Soros] pumps in $3 million to get rid of me, and I’m the only sheriff he’s ever gone after,” Arpaio noted. The contempt of court charge came about the day before early voting began “and they did it again two weeks into early voting.” And when that news hit the media, the news scribblers speculated non-stop that Arpaio “could go to jail for six months.”

Yet, the 4 million-plus people living in Maricopa County had kept rehiring Arpaio since, deep down, they knew an effective lawman when they saw one. It took the corrupt, soon-to-be-obsolete media, in tandem with a twisted malefactor like Soros, to manipulate public perception just enough to prevent what otherwise would have been a seventh term for the nation’s toughest lawman whose tactics in fighting the heroin scourge, hopefully, will be reinstated across the nation under Trump. We can only hope Arpaio’s career is not over. America needs more men like him.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. He is also the chairman of the America First Action Committee, a group dedicated to mobilizing grassroots Americans to pressure Congress on bad legislation and support Congress on good legislation. Email him at [email protected]


Gen. James Mattis: a Liberal Trojan Horse in the Trump Administration?

Gen. James Mattis is an odd pick for President-elect Donald Trump’s new secretary of defense. In stark contrast to Trump’s campaign promises to put America first, Mattis has a long history of promoting globalism and perpetual war. Could Mattis be the globalists’ Trojan horse, who will ensure the internationalists’ gravy train doesn’t end?

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

With President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Gen. James Mattis to be his secretary of defense, Trump has brought a very different vision into the executive branch.

Mattis is part of the neoconservative movement and does not, generally speaking, hold to the “America first” mindset of the president-elect. In his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in 2014, he said on the “ISIS threat” that, “The geography of the globalized world does not permit us to look away as if this is not our problem.” This is an unambiguous statement in favor of constant war, and a globalized world policed by the U.S.

The most problematic aspect of Mattis is that he is on the board of directors for the Center for a New American Security. Boeing, a major defense industry player, the Japanese government, and the ultra-liberal Carnegie Corporation are the group’s largest donors as of last year. Soros’s Open Society Foundations, along with James Murdoch, Lockheed, Bank of America, and Goldman are among the extensive list of other donors. The group has recently called for the overthrow of the popular Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Earlier this year, the center published a paper by Alexander Velez-Green, titled “The United States and Russia Are Already at War,” stating the following:

Russia’s unconscionable weaponization of the Syrian refugee crisis represents this paradigm in action. For instance, Moscow’s initiative may yet undermine the Hungarian liberal establishment and push the country toward a more permanently xenophobic political footing. If that happens, it will be like one of the 28 screws holding NATO together unwinding just enough to weaken neighboring screws. The ongoing uptick in nationalism in Europe—aided by Russia-backed far-right European political parties—suggests that this is not an idle fear. Left untended, this unwinding could shatter the alliance’s unified front.

As a member of the board of directors, Mattis approved this article and its contents. The liberal ideology of the center is clear. This ideology is essential to the center: It’s called “the liberal order” by its main writers.

This is the general’s political agenda. This liberal agenda, one to be imposed and maintained by force, is evident in Mattis’s own words as well.

The board of directors is a populist’s nightmare.

Denis Bovin, an elite banker and a high-ranking member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), also sits on the board. Lewis Kaden is a member of both the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, while board member William Kennard is part of the Carlyle Group. David Schwimmer is the co-chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs’s “Business in Russia/CIS” division and head of Investment Banking for Russia and Eastern Europe. The CEO of the center is Michele Flournoy, the under-secretary of defense for Obama and a member of the CFR. This group comprises the same elites that sought to destroy Trump.

In 2013, Mattis told USA Today, “Those who want to say girls don’t go to school, sure I’m all for killing them, or stopping them, and if that means killing them, you do it.”

Apart from the fact that no Islamic faction holds to this doctrine, this quotation strongly implies that American violence abroad has an ideological component: Islamic or traditionalist ethics is not only wrong, but is sufficient cause for mass slaughter.

In a similar vein, he said, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

Mattis was the Marine commander during the battle of Fallujah in Iraq. Speaking about such experiences, he told a panel discussion in California in 2005: “Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. . . . It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.” This sort of talk is rare for real combat veterans. The general is certainly combat experienced, but this sort of rhetoric seems more aimed at painting an image than speaking the truth.

In terms of policy, his neoconservative background comes out in his views on Iran.

In a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he said: “Every morning I woke up and the first three questions I had, had to do with Iran, and Iran, and Iran. It remains the single most belligerent actor in the Middle East.”

He added in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in 2014:

Having dealt with this enemy since 1979 . . . we are up against an enemy that means what they say and we should not patronize them. When they say “girls don’t go to school” you’re not going to talk them out of it . . . their views of the role of women, their views of modernity, their views of tolerance for people who think differently are fundamentally different than ours.

This suggests that being against modernism is cause for war with the United States.


In that same speech to the committee, Mattis also stated that Assad was engaged in a “genocidal” war against the Sunnis in Syria. This, he implied, was the reason ISIS became the main fighting force in the area. He offered no evidence.

Thomas E. Ricks, in his book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2003 to 2005, wrote that Mattis said to local tribal leaders in Iraq: “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f**k with me, I’ll kill you all.” If this is true, then Mattis is not merely playing a role, but might well be unbalanced.

The media has engaged in a bloodthirsty assault on Trump since he announced his candidacy. Suddenly, this was suspended. Very little public criticism is available against Mattis. There is a reason for this.

Matthew Raphael Johnson, Ph.D. lives in Pennsylvania. His latest books Russian Populist: The Political Thought of Vladimir Putin and The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy are available from TBR Book Club.

Chemicals in Popular Herbicide Even Worse Than Killer Poison?

Frankenfood makers routinely test glyphosate, the primary ingredient in RoundUp, as a single agent and declare it safe. But that is deceptive because glyphosate is always combined with dangerous adjuvants. Glyphosate-based herbicides contain many other chemicals, which when mixed together are 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate on its own.

By James Spounias

If the alliance between government and powerful business interests isn’t enough to give you an ulcer, try to wrap your head around two stories, published within days of each other, concerning the testing of glyphosate. This controversial herbicide is used in combination with adjuvants in finished products, notably RoundUp, made by agrichemical giant Monsanto.

Adjuvants are ingredients in a solution that usually facilitate or modify the action of the principal ingredient in the mixture.

The first story came out Nov. 11, stating that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it has suspended testing of glyphosate in foods, blaming differing test methods and laboratories.

The agency stated it may revisit testing in the future.

The second article, published two days later, on Nov. 13, reveals high levels of glyphosate have been discovered in popular foods, according to a report published by grassroots advocacy organization Food Democracy Now and the Detox Project, which commissioned an FDA-registered lab to conduct testing.

You read that correctly: The government cannot test glyphosate, but public interest groups can test—using the government’s labs.

If you believe the FDA is actually testing foods for high levels of pesticides and herbicides in a meaningful way, think again.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) bluntly stated the FDA isn’t testing nearly enough in size and scope to matter, and that glyphosates weren’t even tested in 2014. The agency reported, “FDA tested less than one-tenth of 1% of imported shipments.”

The GAO also chided the FDA for not disclosing that it does not “test for several commonly used pesticides with an EPA established tolerance (the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that is allowed to remain on or in a food)—including glyphosate, the most used agricultural pesticide.”

The GAO’s criticism makes it clear that the dangers of pesticides and herbicides aren’t taken seriously by federal agencies. This is not because of omission or negligence.

The FDA only started testing for glyphosates in February 2016, after being criticized for not doing so—following the release of a damning report on glyphosate dangers by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which re-classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in March 2015.

The Obama Administration, falsely portrayed by the so-called rightwing as anti-business egghead environmentalists driving American corporations out of the U.S., is literally in bed with Big Agriculture on this issue.

The fact that the FDA announced it will no longer test for glyphosate just two days after Donald Trump was declared president-elect speaks to the fact that Big Agriculture’s power is fairly certain it will be business as usual under the new administration.

This writer will not hold his breath that foods will be tested properly under a Trump presidency any more than they were under Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter.

The second article headline—that shockingly high levels of glyphosate were found in commonly eaten foods—resulted from a substantial testing project done by Food Democracy Now.

Using sophisticated “gold standard” test methods at an FDA-registered laboratory, Food Democracy Now learned that, so far, alarming levels of glyphosate were found at levels that present significant risks according to the latest independent peer-reviewed science on glyphosate in General Mills’ Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran and Frosted Flakes, PepsiCo’s Doritos Cool Ranch,

Ritz Crackers, Nabisco’s Oreos, and Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips, as well as many other popular products.

“Frankly, such a high level of glyphosate contamination found in Cheerios, Doritos, Oreos and Stacy’s Pita Chips is alarming and should be a wake-up call for any parent trying to feed their children safe, healthy and non-toxic food,” said Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now.

How much glyphosate is “safe” for human consumption isn’t an easy question to answer, because credible, independent, peer-reviewed scientific evidence states that the levels of harm begin at the miniscule 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) level, while glyphosate industry-sponsored research dismisses this low number.

Food Democracy Now’s test revealed a whopping 1.125 ppb in the popular breakfast cereal Cheerios.

This latest evidence calls for a much lower allowable daily intake (ADI) to be set at 0.025 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight per day or “12 times lower than the ADI” currently set in Europe and 70 times lower than the level currently allowed by the EPA in the U.S.

“These results show that both the U.S. regulators and food companies have let down consumers in America. Independent science shows that glyphosate may be a hormone hacker at these real-life exposure levels found in the food products,” said Henry Rowlands, director of the Detox Project, an international organization dedicated to testing our food and our bodies for toxic hormone-hacking chemicals. “The safe level of glyphosate ingestion is simply unknown despite what the EPA and Monsanto would have everyone believe.”

There’s another issue not yet addressed by the government or Food Democracy Now: The adjuvants used in conjunction with glyphosate are not being tested. Combining these chemicals into a toxic cocktail could make the witch’s brew even more dangerous than glyphosate alone.


This is not to criticize Food Democracy Now, which has taken on the Herculean task of educating the public on the dangers of glyphosate and clearly faces roadblocks and financial impediments to test every chemical used in finished products. Public health organizations should not have to do the job of federal agencies, paid with taxpayer dollars to do so.

The adjuvants, however, make glyphosate much more dangerous to health and are conveniently ignored by the establishment, which relies on “corporate studies” that only look at glyphosate as a sole ingredient.

In the real world, the corporate-sponsored test-tube assurances of isolated glyphosate safety are bunk, because all commercial products using glyphosate have additives. These are often dangerous enough on their own, but combined with glyphosate they can be much worse.

“” quoted Dr. Robin Mesnage of the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at Kings College in London in 2015 who offered evidence for the statement that RoundUp is 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Mesnage stated: “Glyphosate is everywhere throughout our food chain—in our food and water. The lack of data on toxicity of glyphosate is not proof of safety and these herbicides cannot be considered safe without proper testing.

We know RoundUp, the commercial name of glyphosate-based herbicides, contains many other chemicals, which when mixed together are 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate on its own.”

If we look at the “big picture” of pollutants, such as glyphosate and other herbicides, fluoridated water, hydrogenated vegetable oils, high-fructose corn syrup, and vaccines, to name a few, we get the idea that we are indeed left victim to assaults protected by the powers that be and that attempts to do the right thing are suppressed by this same cabal.

People take to the streets over which selected puppet gets to rule, but it is time that all, no matter color, creed, religion or political persuasion, join together to demand clean food, water, and air and restoration from damage done by the powers that be.

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

Standing Rock Water Protectors Wounded But Victorious—For Now

Protesters seeking to block the construction of an oil pipeline under a reservoir that provides clean drinking water for thousands of people won a major victory last Sunday. That victory may be short-lived, however, as the energy company’s CEO announced that they plan to proceed whether the government backs them or not.

By Sophia Meyer

On Dec. 4, at the Oceti Sakowin camp in North Dakota, Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II delivered a victorious announcement to 11,000-plus “water protectors,” among them about 2,000 unarmed U.S. military veterans who traveled to the site to peacefully stand with and protect the constitutional rights of their fellow Americans.

The group, which has endured vicious attacks by private security forces and law enforcement agencies, is standing in opposition to the placement of an Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) oil pipeline on treaty land and beneath Lake Oahe, a reservoir on the Missouri River that supplies the tribe’s water.


The Army Corps of Engineers, Archambault told the assembled, had just issued a notice denying an easement necessary for completion of the pipeline. While many of the assembled prayerfully gave thanks and briefly celebrated their victory, most knew it was only a fleeting reprieve.

Just hours later, pipeline operator ETP’s billionaire CEO Kelcy Warren issued a news release: “As stated all along, ETP and SXL [Sunoco Logistics Partners] are fully committed to ensuring that this vital project is brought to completion and fully expect to complete construction of the pipeline without any additional rerouting in and around Lake Oahe. Nothing this Administration has done today changes that in any way.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The group’s rallying slogan, Mni Wiconi, Water Is Life, succinctly articulates their legitimate concerns.

Not only have Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) contractors bulldozed and desecrated sacred Sioux burial grounds while disregarding treaty rights dating to 1851, but the risk of a pipeline break—which is significant, given that just such a disaster has occurred over 2,000 times since 1995—is potentially catastrophic. Oil would pollute not just the reservoir and seep into local aquifers and the tribe’s water supply, but also the Missouri River, which supplies millions of people down-river.

The response to this massive effort to protect the waterways has been extreme—and violent.

In August, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple declared a state of emergency in response to the enlarging group, and in early September, responses to the water protectors began to grow increasingly brutal. On Sept. 3, a small group of people who had traveled to one of the destroyed burial sites were stopped by ETP’s private security forces, who unleashed mace and attack dogs on the group in an assault well documented by independent media on-site but totally unreported by the mainstream media.

Later, water protectors attempted to remove barricades police had erected to block North Dakota Highway 1806—a main route connecting the area with Bismarck to the north, the closure of which prevented travel by emergency medical vehicles as well as locals. With mainstream media finally covering the event, “dozens of police from six states, dressed in riot gear and equipped with armored personnel carriers, cleared the path of protesters, teepees, and in one instance, a horse,” reports Wes Inzenna.

Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, who had invoked the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, an act usually reserved for requesting help to respond to natural disasters, directed the contingent of personnel and materiel. His forces deployed a barrage of so-called nonlethal weaponry against both people and horses.

Tasers, pepper spray, rubber bullets and pellets, and tear gas canisters were shot directly at people’s faces. One female peacekeeper was blinded in one eye while attempting to assist a female journalist retreat from the front lines, when she was hit directly in the face by a round of tear-gas cannisters shot at her from close range. Journalists report an ear-piercing Long-Range Acoustical Device (LRAD), which can cause permanent hearing loss, was deployed repeatedly. At least 141 were arrested, and many women reported they were strip- and cavity-searched, given a number that was written on their arms, and were then held overnight in empty chain-link dog kennel-type pens on the concrete.


On Nov. 21, law enforcement doused the crowds with tear gas and water cannons, despite sub-freezing temperatures, lobbed concussion grenades—resulting in one young woman’s forearm being shredded when she was hit directly as the device exploded—and shot rubber and plastic bullets at the faces and groins of the peacefully assembled group. Because the highway remained blockaded, ambulances were unable to reach the wounded in a timely manner. The Standing Rock Medic and Healing Council reported that 26 people were transported to hospitals, while 300 were treated at the camps.

A multitude of questions arise about accountability—and the future of our now-precarious Bill of Rights—when one considers that these “public servants” were paid, with our taxpayer dollars, to protect the activities of a corporation that unapologetically spat in the face of the federal government. To ensure the oil continues to flow through our precious land, our unarmed, peacefully and prayerfully assembled fellow Americans were repeatedly, violently assaulted—made possible by our dollars.

Calls, letters, and visits demanding accountability and immediate justice are in order to elected representatives at all levels. As the popular saying goes, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Originally from the Midwest, Sophia Meyer is a freelance writer and editor, small farmer and avid gardener now living on Florida’s sunny east coast.

Is a Major Reset With Russia in the Cards?

If all of the recent news is to be believed, it is looking more and more likely that, with President Donald Trump in the White House effective Jan. 20, 2017, the United States and Russian President Vladimir Putin could begin working together very soon on a global scale to fight terrorism, end the bloodshed in the Middle East, and reduce the threat of war. 

By Richard Walker

President Barack Obama’s failed promise to reset relations with Russia has presented his successor, President-elect Donald Trump, with a unique opportunity to build new relations between Washington, D.C. and Moscow.

Given everything Trump has said during his electioneering, it appears it is in the cards that he will draw Washington closer to Moscow and in so doing form an alliance that could see several major developments that would make the world a safer place.

Layout 1

Trump told The New York Times in his latest meeting with its editors that it was in the mutual interests of the U.S. and Russia to get on well, and it was time to end the “craziness” in Syria.

If the recent appearance of one of his sons, Donald Trump Jr., at a Paris meeting of pro-Russia and Syrian-government figures is any indication of his priorities, it would appear an end to the war in Syria is certainly at the top of his agenda.

It could not have escaped his notice that his predecessor, Obama, not only complicated America’s role in tackling ISIS, but also rejected overtures from Russian leader Vladimir Putin to have a united front in defeating ISIS across the Middle East.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Instead, Obama listened to neocon voices on Capitol Hill urging support for a campaign to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad even when that meant arming and training the very extreme Islamic elements such as ISIS, al Qaeda, and the al-Nusra front that were causing the mayhem and posing a threat to the West.

The Paris meeting centered on talks with the “Patriotic Opposition,” a group with ties to Assad and senior foreign policy figures in Moscow. One of its leaders, Randa Kassis, who is married to a French businessman, later said she was optimistic for an end to the Syrian conflict after meeting Trump Jr. and hearing what he had to say.

She would have known in advance of the Paris get-together that the U.S. president-elect was one of the very few political figures in the U.S. to have taken a strong stand against Obama’s Syria policy and to have praised Russia’s military campaign against ISIS.

But, no matter how committed Trump may be to resetting relations with Moscow and ending U.S. military backing for extreme Islamic elements opposed to the Assad government, he will no doubt face opposition from those on the Hill that called for the overthrow of Assad, namely Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

One of the first moves a President Trump could make in January would be to unravel Obama’s regime-change strategy in Syria, thereby freeing up Moscow to take on ISIS without any hindrance.

He could even order closer military cooperation with Russia, making it possible to coordinate air strikes against radical Islamic targets.

The defeat of those groups would pave the way for more meaningful peace talks to end the conflict.

In a sign that the election of Trump is helping shift alliances toward the reset he has in mind with Moscow, Egypt recently declared its support for Assad and plans to send troops to help him defeat ISIS, a move that would have been unthinkable before the U.S. presidential election.

The decision by Egypt’s leader, Gen. Abdel Fatah el-Sisi, to back Assad militarily can be explained by his growing closeness to Russia and Turkey, two countries that have been reconnecting in recent months, though Turkey is pro-ISIS.

What is most surprising about the Egyptian development, coming as it has done with the election of Trump, is that the Saudi-led Arab coalition that has financed ISIS and al-Nusra will now be squeezed as Trump edges closer to Moscow. As a consequence, Washington will find itself in a new alliance with Turkey and Egypt. They will cooperate with the U.S. and Russia to eliminate ISIS and will support the continuation of the Assad regime. That will signal a total reversal of U.S. policy in the region.


All of this, of course, points to a shifting pattern of alliances that may also pose significant problems for the incoming Trump administration if, as appears likely, the Israelis disapprove. There are other issues that may not appear critical at this point but could flare up. One is how Washington will treat an anti-Iranian regime group, MeK, also known as Mujahideen e-Khalq.

The MeK has been used in the past by Israel and the CIA to undertake covert assassinations and bombings in Iran. Members of the group have also killed Americans and were once allegedly in the pay of Saddam Hussein.

Even though MeK is on a State Department list of terrorist organizations, it has many backers on Capitol Hill, among them people within Trump’s inner circle like Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, and Newt Gingrich.

MeK has paid Giuliani and others to lobby for it to be removed from the terror watch list. This is an example of the duplicity and the confusing positions the Trump presidency will face given the machinations of elites in Washington.

Richard Walker is a longtime newsman, who now lives on the West Coast.

Is the Media Pushing Blacks to Prep for Race War?

If you read establishment newspapers, the mainstream media would have African-Americans believing that all whites would like nothing more than to genocide them. AFP recently sat down with the president of a black gunowners group, who argues that all races must overcome this and unite as Americans before the country fractures.

By Dave Gahary

The mainstream media has fanned the flames of racism to the point that blacks and other minorities in America are racing in record numbers to arm themselves and join gun organizations that they can relate to. Although the trend of blacks to be more accepting of legal gun ownership has been in place for several years, empirical and anecdotal evidence suggest it has accelerated significantly since the emergence of Donald J. Trump.


According to NBC News, gun-store owners have said that since Nov. 8 they are “seeing up to four times as many black and minority customers—and black gun groups are reporting double the normal number of attendees at their meetings since the election.”


To examine this phenomenon more closely, AMERICAN FREE PRESS conducted an exclusive interview with Philip Smith, the president and founder of the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA).

Smith, a former human resources consultant in Silicon Valley, moved in 2002 from anti-gun California to pro-gun Georgia. He explained why he founded the organization.

“I went to the gun range for the first time with a couple of coworkers and I literally got the bug,” he said. “I went again for the second time, and the one thing I didn’t see was a lot of folks like myself.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Smith, who is black, thought that since he enjoyed shooting so much there would be other blacks who felt the same way, so he put up a website on Feb. 28, 2015.

“Since then it went from just me to over 14,000 people and growing very, very fast,” he said. “No advertising, just strictly word of mouth and a few interviews here and there.”

Smith explained why blacks were slower than whites to embrace firearms, a lag that may have something to do with the history of blacks and guns.

“When blacks came to the U.S., they really weren’t allowed to have guns,” he said. “There were the so-called ‘black codes,’ where even though blacks were legally considered citizens, everything was done to make sure blacks couldn’t possess firearms.”

Referred to as “slave codes” during colonial times, these laws were passed after slave rebellions to restrict voting, possession of firearms, and congregating in groups. After the war of Northern aggression, Southern states passed “black codes,” modeled after the slave codes, designed to control movement and labor.

“If you were caught with a gun, a citizen was allowed to shoot you on site, no questions asked and no repercussions,” Smith explained.

Although there has been a long history of blacks not having access to guns, Smith believes that mindset is changing. “Back in 2012, a survey found that 22% of African-American households thought having a gun in the home was a great idea,” he said. “Just four years later, 52% of those same African-American households feel the same. So there’s been a tremendous change in our community in a very, very short period of time.”

Another survey, in 2014 by the Pew Research Center, found that 54% of blacks felt gun ownership did more to protect people from crime than it did to put people at risk, versus 29% who said that in 2012. Whites feel the same, up 62% from 54%. Smith’s website cites a study that shows 19% of African-Americans nationwide own firearms, but he believes that number has climbed much higher since he posted that statistic.

“I believe it would be closer to 25%,” he said.

Terrorism and home invasions are a big factor in the change in attitude, Smith believes, as well as the highly publicized shootings of blacks by white police officers.

AFP asked how the current events have affected NAAGA.

“This last week we’ve had 1,500 sign up,” he said. “A lot of the members are concerned about racial tension.”

This is compared to an average of 500 people who join in one week since the inception of NAAGA.


Smith believes racial tensions in the country are getting worse.

“I talked to a couple of gun-range owners—black and white—who said their minority activity is up tremendously,” he said. “There is a high level of fear right now within our community since the election cycle. I get emails every day from folks that just really feel that something bad is about to happen.”

He added: “If we don’t come together as a country, regardless of color, we’re gonna be in a bad spot. We need to take a step back, because if we don’t, the country’s going to be torn to shreds.”

NAAGA has members in every U.S. state. Right now there are only six chapters nationwide, but more are coming. “Next year I envision we would have 20 or 25 chapters nationwide.”

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

Reporter Fired for Applauding Trump

On Nov. 17, journalist Scarlett Fakhar was fired from her job at a Houston Fox affiliate television station after she took to her private Facebook page to applaud the election of Donald Trump and point out the problem of black-on-black violence in this country. Following her termination, she accused the media outlet of censoring conservative views.

By John Friend

A local Houston journalist and news anchor was fired earlier this month following a personal Facebook post that celebrated Donald Trump’s presidential victory and blamed increasing racial tensions and violence in America on President Barack Obama.


Scarlett Fakhar, an Iranian-American who had worked at Houston Fox affiliate KRIV since September 2015, announced on her Facebook fan page that she had been fired from the news station on Nov. 17. The Facebook post that ignited the controversy and eventual termination came the morning after the 2016 presidential election, when millions of Americans of all political persuasions took to social media to express their thoughts on the outcome of the  election.

In her post, Ms. Fakhar noted that she “could barely sleep from how happy and relieved” she was at the outcome of the election. Although she never specifically mentioned Trump, the tone of her post made it clear she supported the populist president-elect.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

“I’ve prayed about this for a long time,” Ms. Fakhar wrote. “And I know many of the Godfearing men and women out there have also. I prayed for the best leader that will turn this country that has become more violent and racist under the Obama administration than ever . . . into the America I once knew.”

Ms. Fakhar went on to lament how America has been going “downhill” under Obama, a point of view shared by millions of Americans. She stated that Obama “has made the entire country hate one another” and criticized how violent crime is covered and discussed in America.

“I work in news . . . and I hate to say it . . . but the number of African-Americans killing one another far outweighs the number of them being killed by whites,” Ms. Fakhar wrote. “And now you have groups murdering police officers both black and white. How did this happen under the Obama administration? You guys want another administration like that?”

Ms. Fakhar concluded her post by criticizing “college kids who wanted Hillary’s free education,” arguing that “no one is entitled to anything” and that kids need to “work hard like the rest of us.”

“I will not be paying for your laziness,” Ms. Fakhar remarked.

Once her personal Facebook post was made public, Ms. Fakhar received criticism from other local journalists and broadcasters, and quickly issued an apology.

“I profusely apologize for making public my personal views on the outcome of the election and other issues,” Ms. Fakhar stated. “It was wholly inappropriate, as a journalist, to do that. Again, my sincere apologies.”

Since her termination, Ms. Fakhar has criticized her former employer as well as local media coverage of her situation.

On Nov. 21, Ms. Fakhar wrote on Facebook that her former station’s “political agenda is becoming more and more clear” in the aftermath of her termination.

“I’m realizing more than ever that this was for the best,” she wrote.

“The station not only silenced me, but has also tried to delete as many comments that support conservative ideologies on their page as possible,” Ms. Fakhar noted. “They want everyone to think the left is the only one with a strong voice. . . . Don’t let the left convince you that everyone thinks like them. What they want more than anything is to control the narrative and the flow of information, so that good, honest people don’t know what’s going on.”


While patriots like Ms. Fakhar are fired for expressing their entirely uncontroversial political perspectives publicly, and other Trump supporters are violently attacked and assaulted, radical leftists continue to wreak havoc across America.

As of this writing, no anti-Trump partisans have been fired or physically attacked for expressing their political views publicly, at least to this newspaper’s knowledge. The double standards and glaring hypocrisy could not be more obvious.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.

Watchdog Offers Real Solutions to Illegal Immigration

A prominent immigration reform group held a press conference recently following the election of Republican Donald Trump to offer real, practical ways to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants who are currently hiding out in the United States. The concern is that Trump will backpedal and not stick to his guns and enforce immigration laws in the U.S.

By Mark Anderson

The Federation for American Immigration Reform held a program Nov. 29 at the esteemed National Press Club in Washington to offer its outlook on how President-elect Donald Trump might proceed to secure the border, starting during his first 100 days.

FAIR issued an advance press release which noted that—with staunch border security advocate Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) at the top of Trump’s list of attorney general nominees—there is reasonable optimism that Trump can make good on his pledge.


FAIR prepared “a step-by-step transition document” that highlights the immigration goals of the Washington-based advocacy group, developed to help Trump “hit the ground running” after his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

“The document includes suggestions for overhauling the legal immigration process, addressing illegal immigration, enforcement of laws in the interior of the country, and refugee policy and national security,” FAIR spokeswoman Cassie Williams told AFP before the NPC event.

A prepared statement from FAIR shared at the press conference noted:

After eight years of the Obama administration dismantling our immigration laws, it is imperative that the next president make it a priority to reverse the damage done by a rogue administration. During his two terms in office, President Obama made it clear that he did not feel bound to enforce immigration laws as enacted by Congress.

[H]e eroded public confidence in the willingness of the Executive Branch to carry out the terms of immigration law. Attacks on federal-state-local cooperation and the assertion of broad discretionary authority to grant de facto amnesty to large classes of illegal aliens made it impossible for the government to retain any credibility regarding the rule of law and its effective execution.”

Thus, FAIR says, the U.S. will not succeed in controlling its borders “until elected officials realize that immigration policies must align with America’s national interests. Otherwise they will not protect the economic, social, and security interests of the American people.”

Some of FAIR’s most essential points, coupled with solutions, include building a physical barrier such as a wall. Fences, while they cannot guarantee security, “are an integral tool for securing borders.”

In 2006, Congress acknowledged this when it approved the Secure Fence Act, calling for building a 700-mile physical barrier along the Mexican border. “This project remains unfinished . . . . The southern border remains the single largest weakness in United States border control efforts.”

But the northern border, which is rarely discussed in terms of security, must not be overlooked. Thus, FAIR representatives at the NPC program noted:

“Our border with Canada is the longest shared border in the world totaling 5,525 miles. Currently, only 3,700 Border Patrol officers are stationed along this border, with unmanned aerial vehicles monitoring only 1,150 miles, or less than one-fifth of it.”


Interestingly, about “300,000 people and $1.5 billion in trade cross the U.S.-Canadian border every day. America and Canada have long engaged in complementary border control efforts. However, recent increases in global conflict and the spread of terrorism make it imperative to remain vigilant that third-country foreign nationals do not exploit the northern border in an attempt to enter the United States undetected.”

Among other proposals, FAIR strongly recommends that the U.S. end all “catch and release” policies by expanding Department of Homeland Security detention facilities and bring the current “catch and release” policy to a halt.

“This misguided policy has turned immigration enforcement into an expensive farce,” FAIR summarized. “The DHS must detain any alien who is either caught crossing the border or apprehended while unlawfully present in the United States, especially those suspected of criminal offenses.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Want to Make America Great? Abolish the Fed

If Americans really want to make the country great again, it’s imperative that we rethink how our money is issued. Rather than have the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve loan money into circulation for the profit of private bankers, we need to look to other options, including government issuance and commodity backed currency.

By Rep. Ron Paul

Former Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher recently gave a speech identifying the Federal Reserve’s easy money and low interest rate policies as a source of the public anger that propelled Donald Trump into the White House. Fisher is certainly correct that the Fed’s policies have “skewered” the middle class. However, the problem is not specific Fed policies, but the very system of fiat currency managed by a secretive central bank.


Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality. This is because, when the Fed acts to increase the money supply, well-to-do investors and other crony capitalists are the first recipients of the new money. These economic elites enjoy an increase in purchasing power before the Fed’s inflationary policies lead to mass price increases. This gives them a boost in their standard of living.

By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Some Fed defenders claim that inflation doesn’t negatively affect anyone’s standard of living, because price increases are matched by wage increases. This claim ignores the fact that the effects of the Fed’s actions depend on how individuals react to the Fed’s actions.

Historically, an increase in money supply does not just cause a general rise in prices. It also causes money to flow into specific sectors, creating a bubble that provides investors and workers in those areas a temporary increase in their incomes. Meanwhile, workers and investors in sectors not affected by the Fed-generated boom will still see a decline in their purchasing power and thus their standard of living.

Adoption of a “rules-based” monetary policy will not eliminate the problem of Fed-created bubbles, booms, and busts, since Congress cannot set a rule dictating how individuals react to Fed policies. The only way to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycle is to remove the Fed’s power to increase the money supply and manipulate interest rates.

Because the Fed’s actions distort the view of economic conditions among investors, businesses, and workers, the booms created by the Fed are unsustainable. Eventually, reality sets in, the bubble bursts, and the economy falls into recession.

When the crash occurs, the best thing for Congress and the Fed to do is allow the recession to run its course. Recessions are the economy’s way of cleaning out the Fed-created distortions. Of course, Congress and the Fed refuse to do that. Instead, they begin the whole business cycle over again with another round of money creation, increased stimulus spending, and corporate bailouts.


President-elect Donald Trump has acknowledged that, while his business benefits from lower interest rates, the Fed’s policies hurt most Americans. During the campaign, Trump also promised to make auditing the Fed part of his first-100-days agenda. Unfortunately, since the election, president-elect Trump has not made any statements regarding monetary policy or the audit the Fed legislation.

Those of us who understand that changing monetary policy is the key to making America great again must redouble our efforts to convince Congress and the new president to audit, then end, the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his column “Texas Straight Talk” for the Ron Paul Institute.