ACLU Amassing Army to Take Down President Donald Trump

The supposed civil rights legal assistance group has veered far from its mission to defend the U.S. Constitution and is now building an army for the express purpose of taking down President Donald Trump.

By Dave Gahary

President Donald J. Trump didn’t just inspire 2016’s “silent majority” to get him elected to the highest office in the land; he’s also singlehandedly responsible for tripling (or doubling, depending on which “fake news” outlet you read) the membership rolls of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the premiere litigator that works “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

In fact, the election of Trump was such a boon for the ACLU that in the five days following the billionaire real estate developer’s stunning victory, “donations totaling $7.2 million have poured in, powered by 120,000 donors,” wrote the Los Angeles Times.

Liberty Stickers

“Since the election, we have seen the greatest outpouring of support [in] our nearly 100-year history, greater than the days after 9/11,” ACLU tweeted.

“Before, our membership was largely older and much smaller,” said the ACLU’s executive director, Anthony D. Romero. “Our members would provide us with money so we could file the cases and do the advocacy. What’s clear with the Trump election is that our new members are engaged and want to be deployed.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

ACLU plans to challenge Trump through a new campaign called People Power, which kicked off on March 11 and featured what they call “resistance training,” which was transmitted via video to “more than 2,300 local gatherings nationwide,” reported Reuters.

People Power’s website states:

On March 11, the ACLU is holding a Resistance Training. This event will launch People Power, the ACLU’s new effort to engage grassroots volunteers across the country and take the fight against Donald Trump’s policies not just into the courts, but into the streets. We’re organizing grassroots events in communities across the country to watch the livestream together. Please join us!

PeoplePower.org will use digital tools to communicate with and help train volunteers to resist President Trump’s unlawful policies across the country. The ACLU will promote ideas for action to defend sanctuary cities, resist deportation raids, oppose the Muslim ban, maintain Planned Parenthood funding and support other organizational priorities.

People Power marks “a major strategic shift for an organization that has traditionally focused on courtroom litigation,” Romero told Reuters. Around 135,000 people had signed up to take on Trump as of March 10.

Heading People Power is the ACLU’s new national political director Faiz Shakir, who was a senior adviser to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and a senior adviser to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), where he helped fight for gay and Muslim causes. Six of the group’s key organizers “were veterans of the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.),” wrote The Washington Post.

Founded in 1920 to protect freedom of speech for anti-war protesters, the ACLU is actually two separate organizations, although they share employees and office space: a 501(c)(4) social welfare group and a 501(c)(3) public charity. Although both organizations engage in litigation, the 501(c)(4) group is legally entitled to take part in unrestrained political lobbying, which is the arm that is attacking the U.S. president.

This is by no means the first time the ACLU has shown its true colors. In 2004, ACLU rejected $1.5 million in donations from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations because of the following language in their donation agreements:

By signing this grant letter, you agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make subgrants to any entity that engages in these activities.

Does that mean ACLU admits it is a terrorist organization?

Dave Gahary writes exclusively for American Free Press.




Death at Your Door: Knock-and-Talk Police Tactics Rip a Hole in the Constitution

In yet another stunningly disturbing incident of unmitigated police state impunity, an appeals court has ruled that police, who shot and killed an innocent man in the middle of the night without ever announcing themselves as law enforcement, have “qualified immunity” against lawsuits–and that this young man, playing video games in his own home, “provoked” the shooting by opening the front door to apparent intruders with his own lawfully owned weapon in hand. 

By John Whitehead

It’s 1:30 a.m., a time when most people are asleep.

Your neighborhood is in darkness, except for a few street lamps. Someone—he doesn’t identify himself and the voice isn’t familiar—is pounding on your front door, demanding that you open up. Your heart begins racing. Your stomach is tied in knots. The adrenaline is pumping through you. You fear that it’s an intruder or worse. You not only fear for your life, but the lives of your loved ones.

The aggressive pounding continues, becoming more jarring with every passing second. Desperate to protect yourself and your loved ones from whatever threat awaits on the other side of that door, you scramble to lay hold of something—anything—that you might use in self-defense. It might be a flashlight, a baseball bat, or that licensed and registered gun you thought you’d never need. You brace for the confrontation, a shaky grip on your weapon, and approach the door cautiously. The pounding continues.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

You open the door to find a shadowy figure aiming a gun in your direction. Immediately, you back up and retreat further into your apartment. At the same time, the intruder opens fire, sending a hail of bullets in your direction. Three of the bullets make contact. You die without ever raising your weapon or firing your gun in self-defense. In your final moments, you get a good look at your assailant: it’s the police.

This is what passes for “knock-and-talk” policing in the American police state.

“Knock-and-shoot” policing might be more accurate, however.

Whatever you call it, this aggressive, excessive police tactic has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

Poor Andrew Scott didn’t even get a chance to say no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by police in a scenario almost exactly like the one described above.
Gideon Elite book
It was late on a Saturday night—so late that it was technically Sunday morning—and 26-year-old Scott was at home with his girlfriend playing video games when police, in pursuit of a speeding motorcyclist, arrived at Scott’s apartment complex, assumed tactical positions with guns drawn and ready to shoot, and began pounding on his apartment door (because it had a light on and there was a motorcycle parked nearby).

Understandably alarmed by the aggressive pounding on his door at such a late hour, Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. Upon opening the door, Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door.

Police failed to identify themselves.

Unnerved by the sight of the gunman, Scott retreated into his apartment only to have police immediately open fire on him. Of the six shots fired, three hit and killed Scott, who had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity.

So who was at fault here?

Was it Andrew Scott, who was prepared to defend himself and his girlfriend against a possible late-night intruder?

Was it the police officers who banged on the wrong door in the middle of the night, failed to identify themselves, and then—without asking any questions or attempting to de-escalate the situation—shot and killed an innocent man?

Was it the courts, which not only ruled that the police had qualified immunity against being sued for Scott’s murder but also concluded that Andrew Scott provoked the confrontation by retrieving a lawfully-owned handgun before opening the door?

Or was it the whole crooked system that’s to blame? I’m referring to the courts that continue to march in lockstep with the police state, the police unions that continue to strong-arm politicians into letting the police agencies literally get away with murder, the legislators who care more about getting re-elected than about protecting the rights of the citizenry, the police who are being trained to view their fellow citizens as enemy combatants on a battlefield, and the citizenry who fail to be alarmed and outraged every time the police state shoots another hole in the Constitution.

What happened to Andrew Scott was not an isolated incident.

These knock-and-talk cases have grown legion.

Police insist that there’s nothing coercive about these tactics. Yet whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as you’re being “asked” to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you don’t really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.

Mind you, these knock-and-talk searches are little more than police fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant.

The goal is intimidation and coercion.

Unfortunately, we’re going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics.

We’ve already seen a dramatic rise in the number of home invasions by battle-ready SWAT teams and police who have been transformed into extensions of the military. Indeed, with every passing week, we hear more and more horror stories in which homeowners are injured or killed simply because they mistook a SWAT team raid by police for a home invasion by criminals.

Never mind that the unsuspecting homeowner, woken from sleep by the sounds of a violent entry, has no way of distinguishing between a home invasion by a criminal as opposed to a government agent. Too often, the destruction of life and property wrought by the police is no less horrifying than that carried out by criminal invaders.

Police State Books John Whitehead

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, these incidents underscore a dangerous mindset in which civilians (often unarmed and defenseless) not only have less rights than militarized police, but also one in which the safety of civilians is treated as a lower priority than the safety of their police counterparts (who are armed to the hilt with an array of lethal and nonlethal weapons).

Winston Churchill once declared that “democracy means that if the doorbell rings in the early hours, it is likely to be the milkman.”

Clearly, we don’t live in a democracy.

No, in the American police state, when you find yourself woken in the early hours by someone pounding on your door, smashing through your door, terrorizing your family, killing your pets, and shooting you if you dare to resist in any way, you don’t need to worry that it might be burglars out to rob and kill you: it’s just the police.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His books, Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves, are available from AFP. Click the Store link above or call 1-888-699-6397 to order. Mr. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.




Is Putin the ‘Preeminent Statesman’ of Our Times?

While the U.S. is on the decline, mired in endless, costly wars around the world, Russia under Vladimir Putin is on the rise. U.S. career politicians assail the Russian leader as the U.S. military taunts him with maneuvers on his borders. Still Putin remains steadfast in his singular effort to make Russia great again.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time. . . . On the world stage, who could vie with him?”

So asks Chris Caldwell of The Weekly Standard in a remarkable essay in Hillsdale College’s March issue of its magazine, Imprimis.

What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?

“When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.

“In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.”

Putin’s approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Donald Trump’s?

Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists, and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.

And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.

The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” He invaded and occupies Ukraine. His old KGB comrades assassinate journalists, defectors, and dissidents.

Yet while politics under both czars and commissars has often been a blood sport in Russia, what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt?

What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July’s coup—or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers?

Does anyone think President Xi Jinping would have handled mass demonstrations against his regime in Tiananmen Square more gingerly than did Putin this last week in Moscow?

Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.

He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him.

In December, one poll found 37% of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17% were positive on President Barack Obama.

There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance.

Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st.

The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order.

On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle’s Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally.

So the old question arises: Who owns the future?

In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia—as was America in the Cold War—may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic.

“Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism,” writes Caldwell. “That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that’s true even here.”

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?.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Beginning of the End as Brexit Takes Shape

Today marks the beginning of the end of UK’s membership in the EU, a solid victory after a long, well-fought battle by populist-minded citizens desiring to restore self-rule to their nation. Divorces can be messy, and time will tell who wins custody of the UK “children”—including the nation’s agricultural programs and national immigration policy—and how the separation will impact the UK’s involvement in the European army.

By Mark Anderson

The inspiring populist surge that’s tugging at the seams of the New World Order has reached an historic turning point. On March 29—nine months after the June 23 “Brexit” referendum vote by a respectable majority of Brits to exit the European Union—the British government stated it would honor the will of the voters and is starting the formal process of filing for divorce from the EU.

It’s been nearly 45 years since British Prime Minister Edward Heath took the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community (EEC)—a Bilderberg-blessed trade and economic bloc that gradually sapped British sovereignty and foreshadowed the larger, more consolidated, deeply dictatorial European Union. This paradigm-shifting move in January 1973 brought EEC membership to nine. Then, a 1975 referendum saw the UK electorate vote to stay in the EEC under renegotiated terms of entry.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Over time, Britain, while it clung to its pound sterling and never became part of the eurozone, nevertheless sank into the morass of the bureaucratic, increasingly dictatorial European Union. The 28-member EU’s immigration policies became especially egregious, in the eyes of UK voters.

The practical outcome of those policies: a heavy flow into Britain of often unassimilable foreigners who have drastically changed the island nation’s unique character. And British military involvement in the “war on terror” has helped destroy the home countries of Middle Eastern and North African peoples who have migrated into Europe and the UK, in ever-larger numbers.

Kicking off Brexit’s expected two-year process of pulling out of the EU, UK Prime Minister Theresa May confidently told members of Parliament in the House of Commons: “This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back.” Accordingly, the UK’s Article 50 six-page notification letter was delivered by Sir Tim Barrow to European Council President Donald Tusk in Brussels.
Liberty Stickers

But the EU super-state and its managers aren’t big on national sovereignty. Sky News quoted Tusk as saying: “There is no reason to pretend that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels, nor in London. After all, most Europeans, including almost half the British voters wish that we would stay together, not drift apart . . .

“But paradoxically there is also something positive in Brexit. Brexit has made us, the community of 27, more determined and more united than before,” Tusk added, “In essence, this is about damage control. Our goal is clear: to [minimize] the costs for the EU citizens, businesses and Member States. We will do everything in our power . . .  to achieve this goal. And what we should stress today is that, as for now, nothing has changed: until the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, EU law will continue to apply to—and within—the UK.

“Finally, I would like to say that we have just released an official statement by the European Council, in which leaders stress that we will act as one and start negotiations by focusing on all key arrangements for an orderly withdrawal. On Friday [March 31] I will share a proposal of the negotiating guidelines with the Member States, to be adopted by the European Council on 29 April.”

Divorces, even when necessary and ultimately beneficial, can be a messy affair. Of course, the establishment press is largely beside itself, casting doubt on the wisdom of Brexit while trying to read the tea leaves on why mostly rural British voters decided they’d had enough of the EU. One BBC article called Brexit “suicidal self-harm” that will deny British finances and manpower to the greater EU.

Thought Police Censorship AFP

Significant challenges do lie ahead. Will the UK’s entanglement in the budding European army prove to be a barrier or have a slowing effect on executing Brexit? Will Brexit allow the UK to regain control of its fisheries and other agricultural systems? Will the UK government maintain open-borders immigration policies even as a non-EU member?

And as former UK intelligence analyst Alex Thomson of Eastern Approaches told the “UK Column News”  for its March 29 broadcast, the EU is a “supra-national body” from which departure is no cakewalk, because it’s not as if the UK is departing just another international organization.

As he stated, “The EU is unique in global and diplomatic institutions, in that it is not just an international organization by treaty, but it is also a supra-national body. It sits above and replaces parts of your government, by the connivance of your government, over the heads of the people. The continentals [those in the EU mainland] are starting to realize this as well.”

He added that the EU’s supra-national doctrine regarding sovereignty, “once acquired, always acquired” makes departing the EU particular difficult, as necessary and desirable as it is.  “It’s something that’s never been done before in world history,” he concluded.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.




American Free Press Is Under Attack!

Dear American Free Press supporter:

Let’s be honest. As far as cash reserves go, the bank account of American Free Press is usually as empty as Mother Hubbard’s cupboard. We struggle every month to make ends meet, but always get the job done. We publish a real newspaper—not one loaded with the kind of fake news you get from the controlled media and so many “alternative” media outlets who don’t bother to check the facts. That’s right: Our bank account is small, but our staff and writers have the hearts of lions.

And though our print subscribership is relatively small and we are lucky to crack the top 75,000 websites in the world every year, we certainly get noticed by a lot of high-powered agitators.

Just recently, for instance, Internet giant Google informed us that they will no longer do business with us. On February 9, we received a termination notice from the brass at Google ending our advertising contract. The reason?  AFP is, in a nutshell, too politically incorrect for them. Incidentally, we were making just $144 a month from what is known as Google Ad Sense. Google Ad Sense monitors website traffic and discovered last year that AFP’s Internet site, staffed by just one part-time employee, had, on average, nearly 400,000 different people reading a grand total of over 1.7 million pages on our website every month.

Despite the small staff and the minimal budget, these are very good numbers for some of the “big boys,” let alone one small, independent newspaper fighting for its existence.

But Google didn’t care. They informed us our relationship was over—without the right of appeal—because of what they called a “site-wide violation of policy” related to articles and products they think are too hot to handle. Fine, we figured. What’s $144 a month in the grand scheme of things?

But then we thought we’d look a little closer. Recently, a wide-eyed, wet-behind-the-ears journalist named Tess Townsend, writing for a website named “Recode,” made a shocking admission. Google did not make this decision on a whim. No. This massive company was pressured into the move by an allegedly “non-profit” gang of “free speech watchdogs” called Media Matters for America, a group once sued by C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel for George H.W. Bush, for violating the rules of non-profit organizations by using their website as a platform to smear conservatives. In 2011, Gray sent a letter to the IRS alleging that Media Matters’s activities were not primarily educational, but instead “unlawful conduct.” He asked that the tax-exempt status of Media Matters be revoked! And it should have been.

But who is Media Matters, and why does it matter?

Media Matters for America was started in 2004 by a man named David Brock (the former boyfriend of James Alefantis of Comet Ping Pong Pizza fame). Their office space was initially supplied free of charge by John Podesta, with whose name you are no doubt familiar. And guess who gave her time as a volunteer consultant for Media Matters in the early days of its formation? None other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But let’s delve a little deeper. A non-profit organization like Media Matters, with a fancy website and a staff busting out of their D.C. offices (long-since moved out of the cramped office space supplied by Podesta) must have received funding from somewhere. But from where? And from whom?

It turns out that Media Matters got a big kick start with a $2 million donation from a group called MoveOn.org. You remember them, right? They’re the group that helps organize anarchistic rallies against Donald Trump and other conservative politicians and journalists, supplying logistics and funds so leftists of all stripes can shut down cities, tie up traffic, and keep hardworking people like you and me from getting to work so we can feed our families while groups like Black Lives Matter and ski mask-wearing hooligans can destroy the personal property of businesses, throw bricks through shop windows, physically attack people they don’t agree with, and even rain down rocks and stones on average Americans trying to attend conservative political rallies.

Hundreds of them were arrested during the Trump inauguration because, honestly, they could have killed people. And, according to D.C. police, they almost did. They have no concern for free speech. No concern for differing opinions. And they certainly don’t care a lick for anyone who won’t adopt their Marxist political agenda.

The Left definitely does not practice the “tolerance” it preaches.

But the plot thickens . . .

By the way, MoveOn.org is directly funded by one of the richest leftist troublemakers in the world. You guessed it. Hungarian-American George Soros. It’s clear that nothing goes on at MoveOn.org that slimeball Soros does not know about personally. According to a CNN report, Soros himself donated $1 million to Media Matters in its early stages. In a 2014 interview, founder Brock said Soros’s donations only accounted for “less than 10%” of the budget of Media Matters.

So, trust me when I say, there is a real move afoot to destroy free speech in America, led by some of the richest and best-funded billionaires and “advocacy” groups in the world.  And American Free Press has now become a focus of these powerful culture munchers—ones that don’t really like that you and I have opinions about things that are in stark contrast to theirs.

Yes, American Free Press is now on the front lines of a battle for freedom of speech. And what a battle it will be.

Am I exaggerating?  I don’t think so . . .
They ALL have axes to grind with AMERICAN FREE PRESS . . .

Does left-leaning Arianna Huffington have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Huffington, who went out of her way to commission a hit piece on American Free Press last year, was peeved when we wouldn’t just lie down and shut up after she trained both barrels of her smear machine at AFP. After she attacked us, we went on the offensive and exposed her as a fraud—a fraud who, judging from former employees, had more complaints from workers than the Wicked Witch of the West. Has she got money to burn? She sure does, as we’ll explain later.

Does John Podesta have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Did we hit a little close to home with our honest coverage of his strangely intimate involvement with Hillary?

Does Hillary Clinton have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Maybe a little. AFP sold literally thousands of copies of Hillary (And Bill)—Victor Thorn’s magnum opus on the crimes of the Clintons. Thorn is no longer with us, but he made his mark and ruffled that vulture’s feathers.

Does George Soros have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Well, it’s AFP that has consistently exposed his involvement in nearly every anti-American “protest” group out there, from Black Lives Matter to pro-abortion groups to anti-Trump rabble-rousers and to slimy outfits like Media Matters, that insist all dissenting viewpoints be crushed without mercy.

Now let’s do a little math . . .

• According to the website “How-Rich.com,” John Podesta is worth $12 million.

• According to “CelebrityNetWorth.com,” Arianna Huffington is worth $50 million.

• Bill and Hillary Clinton are alleged to be worth as much as $50 million. But we know that is a low-ball figure. According to The Washington Post (and we think we can trust them on this, but probably not for much else besides the weather and the sports scores), the Clintons have amassed a global empire including the Clinton Foundation that may be, in fact, worth $2 billion.

• And what about George Soros? According to Forbes magazine, Soros was worth, in 2017—now take a deep breath—$25.2 billion.

• And Google. You better sit down if you aren’t already. Larry Page and Sergey Brin are together worth a combined $498 billion!

• The aforementioned president of Media Matters, David Brock, by the way, makes (according to its non-profit tax form for 2011) more than $286,000 per year. Do you realize that would pay every single staff member and freelance writer AFP employs for an entire year?

That’s some high-octane pocketbook power—all trained on American Free Press.
But what’s the real reason “THEY” hate AFP?
Could it be because:

• AFP refuses to kowtow to these overlords of the mass media and politics?

• AFP refuses to run their cookie-cutter fake news stories and instead debunks them?

• AFP—with the support of our readers—consistently scoops them issue after issue?

• AFP actually checks facts before running with a story?

• AFP—alone among all independent news media—has managed to continue to publish a newspaper in print and on the web, on a shoestring budget, that consistently outperforms the largest media outlets in the world?

• AFP is not controlled by advertisers, lobbying groups or the CIA? If you know anything about “Operation Mockingbird,” you know the CIA has a long history of using the mainstream media to plant stories designed to condition the American public for war.

Is it possible American Free Press irritates the masters of the media more than any other news outlet in business today?

Well, whatever we are doing, the likes of those mentioned above apparently have a hive of African killer bees in their bonnets. They are determined to shut us up.

But guess what?

THAT’S NOT GOING  TO HAPPEN!

But we have to admit: There is only one way we can survive to win this battle. Fortunately, we have something all those billionaires and millionaires and media moguls don’t have . . . a dedicated group of subscribers and supporters—average Americans—who understand the importance of a truly independent media.  And you are one of these people.

You are all our dedicated partners in our effort to get the truth out.

We’re not asking for a billion dollars. Nor a million. Nor $100,000 . . .

We just want enough to keep on publishing, to keep on irritating the powers that be by not giving in. And we vow that we will keep publishing until we either drop dead or emerge victorious.

By surviving . . . we win.  And so does America.

Without American Free Press, what is there, really? Just a tiny handful of papers that are in the same boat as AFP. We can count them on one hand. And kudos to them as well.

But let’s be honest. Of those, AFP is the loudest, most effective independent voice for freedom in this country today that is not controlled by outside, un-American agitators.

As long as you like what we are doing and are willing to open your wallets every few months and send in whatever you can, we will not be silenced.

Your support means we will never be forced to crawl up to the altar of fake news and worship at the feet of the high priests of political correctness.

AFP may very well be the last real newspaper in America with any substantial voice.

But, without you, our voice could one day go silent. And that’s no lie.

We can’t let that happen!

Please click here to make a donation.

We’re not in it for the profit. We’re in it for America. And we know you are, too.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart,

– Paul Angel
Vice Chairman / Art Director / Production Manager / Chief Branding Officer
American Free Press

P.S. To the list of high-powered muckety-mucks who want to silence AFP, you can add the Anti-Defamation League (net assets of $90 million for 2015) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (currently worth more than $250 million).  They have been trying since we started to shut our doors—but have failed again and again.

P.P.S. While piecing together this request for assistance, I just got word from our webmaster that YouTube, the massive video channel, can be added to the list of companies that want our message censored. Worth between $26 billion and $40 billion, according to online estimates, YouTube has given us our first “strike” and suspended our ability to post videos on their site for 90 days. Why? One video we posted about the suppression of free speech in Canada is too politically incorrect!

Where does it stop? It’s time to draw our own line in the sand. . . .

TO DONATE:

Click here or…

Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free to charge a donation, Mon.-Thu., 9-5, or mail to AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774.

If you would like to talk to an AFP staff member about donating, please call 202-544-5977. You can talk directly to me by calling that number and the operator will gladly transfer the call.




The Battle of the Billboards Rages On in the South

North Carolina citizens are expressing their free-speech rights peacefully by posting messages expressing their values on billboards, an action that has generated both controversy and conversation. 

By Dave Gahary

A seven-word, anonymous billboard running along a stretch of road between Greensboro and Winston-Salem, N.C. has many locals up in arms, feeling that the message “delivers an antiquated, misogynistic, even transphobic message.” They’ve decided to fight back, by putting up their own billboard, with plans to spread them across not just North Carolina, but the entire country. What are the seven words that so disturbed a “liberal” contingent of the Winston-Salem community last month? “Real Men Provide. Real Women Appreciate It.”

Winston-Salem (population 241,218), nicknamed the “Camel City” (think cigarettes) is the most religious city in the state, and is extremely racially diverse, with a mix of 47% white, 35% black, and 15% Hispanic.

A local business owner, Molly Grace, who was tipped off to the billboard on Facebook, had organized a peaceful protest on Feb. 26 to counter what she and others feel is the sign’s negative message: “that men provide and that women should be thankful.”

American Free Press sat down with Ms. Grace, a white, heterosexual, 30-year-old, single mother of one, who relocated to the Tar Heel state from western Pennsylvania seven years ago. She explained why she was offended by the message and what she is doing about it.

Listen to AFP’s exclusive interview with Molly Grace by clicking the image below.

“The message was a hurtful one, and regardless of what the author intended it to mean— which is still unclear—the words that were chosen send an emotionally harmful message to young girls and boys,” she told AFP.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Others see the message as extremely positive, especially in the black community, where, as Rev. James David Manning pointed out in an interview with this writer several issues ago:

“What has happened to families, where black men have abdicated their responsibility toward their children, [impregnating] these girls, and then leaving them to fend for themselves, not knowing where their next meal is coming from, living on government handouts, living in rat- and roach-infested buildings . . . this is across the board in the black community.”

Obviously, for that segment of the black community that falls into this category, the slogan “Real Men Provide” takes on a completely different meaning, especially for black women.

Inspired to counter the message, Ms. Grace organized a rebellion of sorts.

“Several people and myself tossed around different ideas of what we could do that would send a more positive message to counter the negative one,” Ms. Grace explained. “We decided that purchasing our own billboard with a positive, all-inclusive version of that message would be a really good way of doing that.”

Those attending the protest event voted and selected “People of Quality Don’t Fear Equality” for the words that will adorn their billboards.

Ms. Grace, who has received nasty phone calls and emails as well as death threats, is not deterred. “We are raising the funds to not only get one billboard in the Winston-Salem area, but we’re actually looking at making this an ongoing project and trying to get the same billboard all over other areas throughout the country,” she explained.

So far the project has garnered $3,627 in donations. “The billboard in Winston-Salem will cost about $2,000,” states the donation website. “We are hoping to exceed that goal and raise $10,000 to purchase several more billboards with the same message around the country.”

Curiously, on March 4, the seven-word billboard that caused such a stink was replaced by a new 39-word one: “Much Ado About Nothing. A social experiment that brought forth those so immersed in their own insecurity that in the mirror they could only see an angry victim of their incorrect interpretation of a silly billboard—Bless their hearts.”

Ms. Grace touched on why this message offends her as well.

“The thing that we were protesting is not ‘nothing,’ so shame on you for trying to tell us that the things that are very important to us are nothing,” she said.

So the next time you’re out driving around the country—wherever you are—keep your eyes peeled for politically motivated billboards. Whether you like their messages or not, it’s a peaceful way to express your opinions and exercise your First Amendment rights. And that’s what free and open debate should be about—not violent tactics in which one group or another tries to physically assault those who hold differing opinions, causing mayhem, property damage and, sometimes, serious physical injury.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him.




Tech Company Behind Russian Hacking Claims Forced to Roll Back Botched Reports

Despite retraction of the report by a DNC-employed cybersecurity company that was behind the much-trumpeted claims of Russian hacking, allegedly intended to undermine America’s democratic processes and put Donald Trump in the White House, claims of Russian meddling continue to be made by such influential neocons as Dick Cheney and John McCain. With or without evidence, the attempt to involve the U.S. in conflict with Russia continues. 

By John Friend

A U.S. cybersecurity firm employed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to investigate alleged hacking carried out by the Russian government and its proxies during the 2016 presidential election campaign has been forced to retract key findings in a report it used to substantiate allegations of Russian meddling and interference in American domestic politics as well as Ukraine’s conflict with pro-Russian separatists in the Crimea area.

The Deep State JFK-911 cover

CrowdStrike, utilized by the DNC to manufacture claims of Russian hacking against the DNC and Clinton campaign more generally in an effort to help Donald Trump triumph in the heated 2016 presidential election, released a report in December of last year asserting, among other things, that Russian actors hacked into a Ukrainian artillery application resulting in heavy losses of Ukrainian howitzers. The CrowdStrike report was originally based on data and information provided by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), an influential think tank based in London that researches political and military conflict.

However, IISS recently told Voice of America that CrowdStrike “erroneously” used its data as “proof of the intrusion” into the Ukrainian artillery application. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has also denied key findings of the report, and insists the hacking never even took place.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

CrowdStrike was one of the first cybersecurity firms to allege Russian actors were behind the hacking of the DNC. Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and CTO of CrowdStrike, has insisted a variant of the software utilized in the now discredited Ukrainian “hacking” was similar to the software utilized in the purported hacking of the DNC. The original report alleging Russian hacking into the Ukrainian artillery application, issued in December of last year and widely circulated and sourced in the mainstream corporate mass media, has now been significantly updated and revised as a result of media exposure.

The latest setback for a firm seen as instrumental in guiding elite political and media opinion on the veracity of alleged “Russian hacking” and interference in the 2016 presidential election in favor of President Trump comes as leading critics of Trump and key Democratic lawmakers struggle to substantiate their theories of covert Russian meddling in American politics.

Earlier this year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a report and briefed both Congress and President-elect Trump on its conclusions that Russia meddled in the presidential election. The report concluded Russia was involved in the hacking of the DNC and key officials in the Clinton campaign, including John Podesta. It alleged that, through its purported hacking, the Russian government sought to undermine and discredit established U.S. democratic processes and principles, wage cyberwarfare against key political actors, and engage in an elaborate disinformation campaign designed to harm the Clinton campaign and aid Trump.

That report, however, has been panned by many cybersecurity experts. They point out that it is government officials that worked under former President Barack Obama who have basically asked America to trust them when they claim they have connected the dots between the cryptic, shadowy DNC hackers and the Russian government.

Critics of the Trump administration also allege key officials and advisers close to the president have intimate ties to the Russian government and ruling establishment.

Thus far, allegations of Russian meddling and interference in the election, Russian hacking, and Russian ties to Trump appear to be unsubstantiated, overblown, and exaggerated. Many view the allegations as a means of discrediting and delegitimizing Trump and his populist, America-first agenda, with the ultimate goal of undermining his presidency resulting in his impeachment or removal from office. After all, the biggest cheerleaders for the Russian-hacking narrative are Democrats and establishment Republicans that remain antagonistic to Trump.

Still, the rhetoric regarding alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics emanating from leading political and media figures continues to heat up.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently characterized purported Russian interference in the election as an “act of war.”

“There’s no question there was a very serious effort made by Mr. [Vladimir] Putin and his government, his organization, to interfere in major ways with our basic fundamental democratic processes,” Cheney stated during a recent speech at the Economic Times’s Global Business Summit 2017 in New Delhi. “In some quarters, that would be considered an act of war. I think it’s a kind of conduct and activity we will see going forward. We know he’s attempted it previously in other states in the Baltics.”

Sen. John McCain, an influential Republican legislator, critic of Trump, and warmonger, has made similar remarks.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




Who Lost and Who Won When Obamacare Replacement Failed?

Winning by losing is an interesting perspective offered by Patrick Buchanan regarding President Trump’s failure, to date, to repeal Obamacare, a core campaign promise. He may be willing to look to Democrats as coalition partners, but will they be equally amenable?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Did the Freedom Caucus just pull the Republican Party back off the ledge, before it jumped to its death? A case can be made for that.

Before the American Health Care Act, aka “Ryancare,” was pulled off the House floor Friday, it enjoyed the support of 17% of Americans. Had it passed, it faced an Antietam in the GOP Senate, and probable defeat.

Had it survived there, to be signed by President Donald Trump, it would have meant 14 million Americans losing their health insurance in 2018.

Suicide of a Superpower cover Patrick Buchanan

First among the losers would have been white working-class folks who delivered the Rust Belt states to Trump.

“Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan,” said JFK.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

So, who are the losers here?

First and foremost, Speaker Paul Ryan and House Republicans who, having voted 50 times over seven years to repeal Obamacare, we learned, had no consensus plan ready to replace it.

Moreover, they put a bill on the floor many had not read, and for which they did not have the votes.

More than a defeat, this was a humiliation. For the foreseeable future, a Republican Congress and president will coexist with a healthcare regime that both loathe but cannot together repeal and replace.

Moreover, this defeat suggests that, given the ideological divide in the GOP, and the unanimous opposition of congressional Democrats, the most impressive GOP majorities since the 1920s may be impotent to enact any major complicated or complex legislation.

Friday’s failure appears to be another milestone in the decline and fall of Congress, which the Constitution, in Article I, fairly anoints as our first branch of government.

Through the last century, Congress has steadily surrendered its powers, with feeble resistance, to presidents, the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve, the regulatory agencies, even the bureaucracy.

The long retreat goes on.

Another truth was reconfirmed Friday. Once an entitlement program has been created with millions of beneficiaries, it becomes almost impossible to repeal. As Ronald Reagan said, “A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this Earth.”

Nor did Trump escape unscathed.

Among the reasons he was elected was the popular belief, which carried him through scrapes that would have sunk other candidates, that, whatever his faults or failings, he was a doer, a man of action—“He gets things done!”

To have failed on his first big presidential project has thus been an occasion of merriment for the boo-birds in the Beltway bleachers.

Yet, still, Trump’s Saturday tweet—“Obamacare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan . . . Do not worry!”—may prove prophetic.

Now that “Trumpcare” or “Ryancare” is gone, the nation must live with Obamacare. A Democratic program from birth, it is visibly failing. And Democrats now own it again, as not one Democrat was there to help reform it. In the off-year election of 2018, they may be begging for Republican help in reforming the healthcare system.

After what he sees as a wonderful win, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer now intends to block a Senate vote on Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, and thus force Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to muster 60 votes to halt a Democratic filibuster.

Should Schumer persist, Senate Republicans will exercise the “nuclear option,” i.e., change the rules to allow debate to be cut off with 51 votes, and then elevate Gorsuch with their own slim majority.

Why would Schumer squander his political capital by denying a quality candidate like Gorsuch a vote? Does he also think that a collapsing Obamacare—even its backers believe is in need of corrective surgery—will be an asset for his imperiled colleagues in 2018? The last time Democrats headed down that radical road and nominated George McGovern, they lost 49 states.

While the Republicans have sustained a defeat, this is not the end of the world. And there was an implied warning in the president’s Sunday tweet: “Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club for Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare.”

What Trump is explaining here is that, if Republican majorities in the House and Senate cannot or will not unite with his White House behind solutions on healthcare, taxes, infrastructure, border security, he will seek out moderate Democrats to get the work done.

This humiliation of Obamacare reform may prove a watershed for the Trump presidency. What he is saying is simple and direct: I am a Republican president who wants to work with Republicans. But if they cannot or will not work with me, I will find another partner with whom to form coalitions to write the laws and enact the reforms America needs, because, in the last analysis, while party unity is desirable, the agenda I was elected to enact is critical.

The healthcare defeat yet may prove to be another example of winning by losing.

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?




After Jailing Crooked Bankers, Iceland’s Economy Is Roaring

With a remarkable turnaround from economic collapse to financial stability in less than a decade, the “miracle of Iceland” came about after fierce prosecution of banksters and corrupt politicians. Is the “common man” elsewhere around the world viewing this stunning reversal with growing interest, perhaps even strategizing how to likewise overcome the robber barons and save other nations? 

By Dave Gahary

After prosecuting banksters and corrupt politicians in the fallout of widespread protests of the Nordic country’s October 2008 economic collapse, Iceland has regained its financial footing.

The government declared on March 14 that financial stability had been restored and it was ending its “longstanding restrictions on the flow of money into and out of the country,” signifying its “return to international financial markets.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The miracle of Iceland—population 332,529—reported regularly in the pages of this newspaper, is a story of the common man taking on the robber barons and winning. The backlash against the financial machinations almost a decade ago was so fierce that not only were nearly 100 bankers and politicians targeted for prosecution, but Iceland’s prime minister, Geir Hilmar Haarde, was forced out of office, becoming the first sitting minister of that country indicted for misconduct.

Haarde was found guilty of “failing to adequately inform other Icelandic officials of events that led up to the 2008 financial crisis,” reported this newspaper in 2012.

Although Haarde spent no time behind bars, the backlash against the plutocrats “was indicative of Iceland’s re-establishment of its sovereignty after defaulting on the bankers,” wrote American Free Press.

Iceland’s economy expanded over 7% in 2016, all the more remarkable considering its “three main banks failed and its currency and economy fell into a tailspin,” as reported in The New York Times on March 14. After imposing financial controls—which stopped foreign investors from yanking their money out and destroying the economy—Iceland is now worried about the “risks of overheating and inflation.”

While the unemployment rate has plummeted to 2.6%, a near record low, rampant “wage increases are crimping productivity and may encourage inflation,” states the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 35-member intergovernmental economic organization whose goal is to stimulate economic progress and world trade.

At the time of the 2008 collapse, Iceland’s three biggest banks’ combined assets were an astonishing 14 times larger than the country’s economic output. Chafing under a withering $85 billion of debt, “foreigners owned such a huge chunk of that figure that allowing them to take assets out would risk severely devaluing Iceland’s currency, the krona,” reported the Times.

With the krona devalued, reported the Times, “tourism took off much faster than other new ventures because visitors could see the northern lights and the rugged Icelandic landscape at a steep discount.”

Bohemian Grove book cover

Tourism is now Iceland’s biggest industry, recently overtaking fishing and, perhaps not surprisingly, banking, with nearly two million visitors a year pumping over $3 billion into the economy in 2015, a remarkable third of the country’s export earnings. In fact, 10% of Icelanders work in the tourism industry, the country’s single largest employer.

Iceland’s stunning comeback stands in stark contrast to that of Greece, which has been foundering since Athens imposed controls on capital in 2015 as the country seemed to be veering toward dumping the euro.

Although some restrictions were eased, they are mostly expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future.

Sadly, for the Hellenic Republic, economists have little hope that the birthplace of democracy will recover, as it continues to labor under huge debt in its third international financial rescue program in seven years.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him.




Did the Government Spy on Trump? Of Course. It Spies on All of Us!

President Trump has accused former President Obama of wiretapping him and his campaign staff, and evidence has surfaced that may well be true. Dr. Paul suggests this presents an important opportunity for the new president. Will he “see runaway spying on Americans as a grotesque attack on American values” and bring to an end the rampant mass surveillance of Americans? 

By Ron Paul

There was high drama last week when Rep. Devin Nunes announced at the White House that he had seen evidence that the communications of the Donald Trump campaign people, and perhaps even Trump himself, had been “incidentally collected” by the U.S. government.

If true, this means that someone authorized the monitoring of Trump campaign communications using Section 702 of the FISA Act. Could it have been then-President Obama? We don’t know. Could it have been other political enemies looking for something to harm the Trump campaign or presidency? It is possible.

There is much we do not yet know about what happened, and there is probably quite a bit we will never know. But we do know several very important things about the government spying on Americans.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

First, there is Section 702 itself. The provision was passed in 2008 as part of a package of amendments to the 1978 FISA bill. As with the PATRIOT Act, we were told that we had to give the government more power to spy on us so that it could catch terrorists. We had to give up some of our liberty for promises of more security, we were told. We were also told that the government would only spy on the bad guys, and that if we had nothing to hide we should have nothing to fear.
Liberty Stickers
We found out five years later from Edward Snowden that the U.S. government viewed Section 702 as a green light for the mass surveillance of Americans. Through programs he revealed, like PRISM, the NSA is able to collect and store our Internet search history, the content of our emails, what files we have shared, who we have chatted with electronically, and more.

That’s why people like NSA whistleblower William Binney said that we know the NSA was spying on Trump, because it spies on all of us!

Ironically, FISA itself was passed after the Church Committee Hearings revealed the abuses, criminality, and violations of our privacy that the CIA and other intelligence agencies had been committing for years. FISA was supposed to rein in the intelligence community but, as is often the case in Washington, it did the opposite: It ended up giving the government even more power to spy on us.

So President Trump might have been “wiretapped” by Obama, as he claimed, but unfortunately, he will not draw the right conclusions from the violation. He will not see runaway spying on Americans as a grotesque attack on American values. That is unfortunate, because this could have provided a great teaching moment for the president. Seeing how all of us are vulnerable to this kind of government abuse, President Trump could have changed his tune on the PATRIOT Act and all government attacks on our privacy. He could have stood up for liberty, which is really what makes America great.

Section 702 of the FISA Act was renewed in 2012, just before we learned from Snowden how it is abused. It is set to expire this December unless Congress extends it again. Knowing what we now know about this anti-American legislation we must work hard to prevent its renewal. They will try to scare us into supporting the provision, but the loss of our liberty is what should scare us the most!

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.) founded in the 1970s as an educational organization.




Rape of Teen in Maryland Highlights Dangers of Illegal Immigration

In Maryland, the rape of a 14-year-old girl in the high school boys’ bathroom by two older classmates, both of whom are illegal aliens, has drawn national attention. The tragic event highlights the need to address open borders and sanctuary city policies putting children and other innocent American citizens at risk.  

By John Friend

When President Donald Trump announced his bid for the presidency in June of 2015, he made headlines by making illegal immigration one of the main focuses of his campaign. He described the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. as having “lots of problems,” and said they are bringing drugs and crime to America. He also said many of them are rapists. His controversial remarks sparked outrage and hysteria among Democrats and leftist activists, who characterized Trump’s rational stance on illegal immigration as racist, discriminatory, and bigoted. A recent tragic news story in Maryland, however, has proven just how prescient Trump’s bold remarks have proven to be.

Two illegal aliens have been arrested and charged with the vicious rape of a 14-year-old girl in Montgomery County, Maryland, which sits just outside our nation’s capitol.

The two young men illegally residing in the U.S., identified as Henry Sanchez, 18, of Guatemala and Jose Montano, 17, of El Salvador, were placed in the 9th grade at Rockville High School as a direct result of liberal policies sanctioned by countless state and local governments across America.

Sanchez and Montano approached the young victim in the hallway, asking her to have sex. When the young victim refused, Sanchez and Montano forced her into the boys’ bathroom, where they proceeded to rape her in a bathroom stall. The two young men were arrested at school later that day. According to reports, Montano denied raping the young victim when asked by police about the allegations. However, forensic evidence found in the bathroom and presented in court documents make clear a rape did take place.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, is thankful this horrific story is gaining national media attention. Gheen, a strong critic of illegal immigration, argues tragic stories like this rarely make the national or even local news given how detrimental they are to the prevailing leftist narrative that illegal immigrants are simply looking for a better life and more opportunities.

“It’s a miracle that anyone is even hearing about this case, because first the victim had to report the crime, and a lot of crimes like this do not get reported,” Gheen recently stated. “Secondly, once it was reported, it had to make it out of a school system. And quite often, schools suppress the sharing of information like this. And then you have to get past the local media, which often strives to conceal the crime altogether, or to conceal the immigration status of the perpetrator.”

The story has gained national attention, forcing the spotlight on the issue of illegal immigration once again, and has many Americans outraged at the open borders and sanctuary policies enacted by local, state, and federal politicians, which put young children and innocent Americans at risk.

“These young men obviously had no fear of law enforcement,” Gheen argues. “They come from lands where there is no law enforcement. And they show they can come here and break laws with impunity, so why should they fear any boundaries, be they national or sexual boundaries? We hope that this unfortunate case will inspire President Donald Trump to honor his broken campaign promise to end DACA amnesty on his first day in office.”

John Friend is a writer, who lives in California. 




Google Scrubs Politically Incorrect Sites from Searches

Google, the world’s biggest Internet search engine provider, has decided it should “help” readers determine whether or not a search result is “safe” by applying “quality ratings.” In its latest move along the censorship path, Google is now using independent contractors to tag search results that may be “‘offensive or upsetting.” Not surprisingly, sites discussing alternative views of history, including of the Jewish “Holocaust,” are considered especially concerning.  

By Dave Gahary

The most visited website in the world, whose unofficial slogan was “Don’t be evil” until it was replaced by “Do the right thing,” is certainly not doing the right thing and is also acting quite evil. Google, the U.S. multinational technology company best known for its ubiquitous, eponymous search engine, is in a new business: tagging the Internet’s search results of alternative views of the historical event known as the “Holocaust.”

But it’s not just “Holocaust” revisionists Google’s after, but all “Jew haters,” “white supremacists,” and “racists”—or at least trying to ensure that Internet searches do not end up at websites Google has classified as such.

The UK’s Guardian reported on March 15, “Google is using a 10,000-strong army of independent contractors to flag ‘offensive or upsetting’ content, in order to ensure that queries like ‘did the Holocaust happen’ don’t push users to misinformation, propaganda, and hate speech.”

Although Google’s contractors have been utilizing a manual, titled “Search Quality Rating Guidelines,” at least since 2013, “describing every potential problem they could find with a given search query,” a new update to the book orders the censors to “flag” search results that could be “upsetting” or “offensive” to Web surfers.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Speaking of whiners, NBC News interviewed head-whiner of the hopelessly corrupt Southern Poverty Law Center, Heidi Beirich, who moaned to Google a few months ago “to update its algorithm to remove a result from a neo-Nazi website questioning whether the Holocaust happened.”

She told the fake news outlet about Google: “They’re moving away from self-reporting, relying on the public to tell you where there’s problems, and they’re talking about a systematic policy.”

The new system will not affect search results, but will, according to Google, be “used by Google to help judge the success of algorithm changes and . . . to train its machine-learning systems.” Yup, that’s right, artificial intelligence systems that ban human critical thinking.

Google—already scorned for its abuse of privacy, tax avoidance, antitrust behavior, censorship, and search neutrality—has been under additional pressure lately by critics claiming that its searches “promote extremist content.” The UK’s Guardian and Observer published a series of articles promoting this view recently, as well as complaining that it fails “to keep fake news and propaganda off the top of search results.” Of course, “fake news” is in the eye of the beholder.

Founded in 1996 and valued last year at over $133 billion, Google is now the largest subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., which has acquired over 200 companies since last December. Alphabet’s most well-known brand besides Google is YouTube, the video sharing tech company, acquired in 2006. YouTube is also notorious for its censorship of videos that threaten the powers-that-be.

It certainly is a brave, new world we are all on the precipice of, one that rejects free expression and personal responsibility and where those who cry the loudest prevail.

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




Latest Edition Now Available Online

Click on the image below to subscribe to AFP’s online editions.

Already a subscriber? Click here to log in to read the latest issue, AFP’s March 27 & April 3 edition.




Israeli Teen Arrested for Making Bomb Threats to Jewish Centers

According to reports, a 19-year-old Jewish Israeli man has been arrested in Israel and is being charged with making “most” of the bomb threat calls to Jewish institutions since Jan. 1.

By John Tiffany

Since Jan. 1, over 100 bomb threats have been made against Jewish institutions, such as schools and community centers, around the world, including in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. The establishment immediately insinuated that “hateful Trump supporters” were terrorizing the Jewish community. Now, it turns out a 19-year-old Jewish man living in Israel, who holds dual citizenship in America and the Middle Eastern state, stands accused of making most of the threats.

The “cyberattack unit” of Israel’s fraud squad arrested the teenager March 23, it was reported in Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper. The arrest was based on information received from the FBI and other non-Israeli law enforcement agencies.

The motives of the crime are as yet unknown, said an Israeli police spokesman.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Israeli cops seized computers and other equipment the “primary suspect” allegedly used to make it hard for police to track the culprit to his lair. The suspect will remain in custody for at least the next seven days while the investigation continues.

Israeli Judge Amit Michles said, “. . . reasonable suspicion already exists at this stage that convincingly links the suspect to the calls that have been attributed to him . . . to different institutions around the world . . . some of which have led to panic.”

It is looking as if something like an insanity defense is contemplated.

The prisoner’s lawyer, Galit Bash, said: “This is a young man without a criminal record who from a young age suffers from severe medical problems. There is concern that his medical condition affects his cognitive functioning. Therefore, we asked the court to order that the young man be referred to a medical examination. The court accepted our claims and instructed the police to examine the young man’s medical condition.”

The 19-year-old was never enlisted in Israel’s usually mandatory army service because he was determined to be unfit to serve.

The waves of bomb threats all turned out to be hoaxes.

In “at least three” instances, bomb threats were also reportedly accompanied by destruction at Jewish cemeteries, including one in which more than 500 headstones were broken or toppled in Philadelphia. However, in one case in Brooklyn, vandals never toppled gravestones. Instead, dozens of grave stones fell due to neglect and the fact that no one was taking care of them.

In a related case, a former Chicago reporter named Juan Thompson, 31, was arrested recently for his “role” in a number of bomb threats against Jewish centers. Allegedly, he did this “as part of an ongoing attempt to shame his former girlfriend,” Ha’aretz reported. It is not known at this time whether the two suspects are linked in some way other than coincidence.

Thompson was charged with making at least eight threats against Jewish institutions in the United States, and a bomb threat to New York’s so-called Anti-Defamation League.

John Tiffany writes exclusively for AMERICAN FREE PRESS.




Congress’s Probe Into Possible Trump-Russia Ties Fizzles

Yesterday the directors of the FBI and the National Security Agency testified before a congressional committee about a U.S. investigation into allegations of ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Bizarrely, citing no evidence of aggression, congressmen and top U.S. officials claimed Russia continues to be a threat to the United States.

By Mark Anderson

The first day of the House Select Committee on Intelligence’s highly anticipated probe into alleged Russian involvement in influencing U.S. elections and policy saw FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency chief Mike Rogers testify in a spotty manner, going into often-speculative details and yet refusing to elaborate most of the time, under cover of “objectivity.”

Considering the conspiracy theories being pushed by most Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans that Trump administration appointees and allies privately met with Russian officials for the purpose of molding U.S.-Russian relations “off the grid,” you’d expect some kind of evidence. Instead, it was all speculation, but none of that matters for those who just assume that Russia is a dangerous arch-enemy of the United States.

It helps to sit back and take an objective look at the world stage. Russia’s entire western front consists of NATO member-nations or would-be NATO states, which, if they don’t proceed willingly, are prodded into joining NATO.

Montenegro recently became NATO’s latest member, as the U.S.-led alliance pushes ever eastward toward Russia while conducting periodic large-scale military exercises, right at the Russian border in many cases.

Imagine if Russian forces, complete with tanks and columns of soldiers, were in Canada along the U.S. border.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Members of Congress before and during the March 20 committee meeting continued to repeat the timeworn story that Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, when “the other side of the story,” backed up by several AFP reports over the last three years, is that, in a public referendum, Crimean residents voted to align with Russia—right when a U.S.-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s leadership took place.

High-level State Department official Victoria Nuland was involved in serious on-the-ground collusion in Ukraine, far beyond what the Trump White House or campaign is accused of. This helped to foster the overthrow of Russian ally Viktor Yanukovich as Ukraine president and the installation of Western stooge Petro Poroshenko.

Today, Poroshenko stands accused of launching brutal military strikes against east Ukrainians, who traditionally have been allied with Russia.

This all means that Russia reacted to aggression by the West. And when outgoing President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats in late December, Russian leader Vladimir Putin kept a cool head and did not respond in kind. That’s the mark of a true statesman.

You’d think that such perspectives—blotted out by the mainstream press—would at least be briefly considered at the committee hearing, if only in the interest of thoroughness.

Yet committee members singled out Russia Today (“RT.com”) as a highly untrustworthy government-linked news source that’s allegedly trying to influence Western opinion subversively.

However, all Comey and Rogers had done is concede that there is an investigation into Russia-Trump “ties.” But the overall “story” peddled to the American people is that this Russian matter is potentially so serious that the FBI and NSA are setting aside protocol and “breaking their silence” about the existence of the probe.

While addressing the committee, the two meandered through questions on whether Putin and the Russian state are really evil and whether Russia truly sought to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming president and helped catapult Trump into the White House.

While Comey and Rogers dodged many if not most questions—saying they did not find it proper to speculate on the cusp of their probe—they both claimed that Russia is indeed a foe of the U.S. And both said, yes, Russia sought to undermine U.S. “democracy” during the 2016 elections—all of which is highly biased when you consider that the two had already said that speculation is a bad thing at this juncture.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) opined during the hearing that Russia’s election hacking was like a shot over America’s bow.

“I actually think that their engagement was an act of war, an act of hybrid warfare,” Speier stated.

In response, Comey declined to choose the word “war” to describe Russia’s supposed interference in the election. But he did say, “I think they engaged in a multi-faceted campaign of active measures to undermine our democracy and hurt one of the candidates and hope to help one of the other candidates.”

Rogers agreed with Comey’s allegation, larded as it was with the words “I think.”

So much for avoiding speculation at such a pivotal time for the FBI and its presumably objective view of Russia’s actions with regard to the U.S. election and policy.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.