The End Is Near for SPLC Hate Racket

The front-page story in American Free Press Issue 27 & 28, which just went to press (and is available online now for digital subscribers) offers some hopeful news for those looking forward to the demise of the longtime leading national hate group—the SPLC—which has destroyed countless individuals and organizations and holds undue sway over law enforcement agencies across the country as well as much of the media. Nearly four-dozen leaders of conservative and right-leaning nonprofit organizations issued a “Joint Statement by Organizations Defamed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” Now, at least 60 are considering taking legal action against the super-rich smear center for defamation.

By John Friend

In the wake of a high-profile settlement the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently reached with an anti-extremism group, nearly four dozen nonprofit leaders representing conservative-leaning organizations issued a joint statement condemning the SPLC and intimating that a massive lawsuit will likely be launched against the radical activist group.

According to a recent press release, 47 leaders of various conservative and right-leaning nonprofit organizations issued what they described as a “Joint Statement by Organizations Defamed by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” describing how their respective organizations have been smeared and defamed by the SPLC in the past. Expressing gratitude that “the SPLC has formally acknowledged that it has engaged in such misrepresentations” by settling with Maajid Nawaz and his anti-extremism organization the Quilliam Foundation for $3.375 million, the leaders argued that the organization is simply “a leftist instrument of political warfare against those with whom it disagrees,” and that the organization “deserves the infamy it has lately earned.”

The statement continued, “Editors, CEOs, shareholders, and consumers alike are on notice: Anyone relying upon and repeating its misrepresentations is complicit in the SPLC’s harmful defamation of large numbers of American citizens who, like the undersigned, have been vilified simply for working to protect our country and freedoms. . . . With this significant piece of evidence in mind, we call on government agencies, journalists, corporations, social media providers, and web platforms (i.e., Google, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon) that have relied upon this discredited organization to dissociate themselves from the Southern Poverty Law Center and its ongoing effort to defame and vilify mainstream conservative organizations.”

MidEast Chess Board

In addition to the joint public statement, many organizations are considering also taking legal action against the SPLC, according to online news organization PJ Media, which first broke the story.

“We haven’t filed anything against the SPLC, but I think a number of organizations have been considering filing lawsuits against the SPLC, because they have been doing to a lot of organizations exactly what they did to Maajid Nawaz,” Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and one of the signatories of the joint public statement, explained to PJ Media. “The SPLC promotes false propaganda, [and] demonizes and labels groups they disagree with, and that labeling has economic as well as physical consequences.”

Staver told PJ Media that he knew of “at least 60” organizations that are considering taking legal action against the SPLC for defamation in the wake of the settlement with Nawaz.

Now on sale, 20% off! Order from the AFP Online Store today.

Importantly, the June 20 joint statement demands that government agencies, politicians, corporations, media outlets, and social media companies sever ties from the discredited organization, which has for years masqueraded as one of the nation’s leading civil rights organizations.

Many top Internet giants and social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, have partnered with the SPLC to monitor, patrol, and combat “hate speech,” erroneously viewing the organization as an objective purveyor of information and advice. Mainstream media outlets have likewise relied on the SPLC for analysis and advice on issues pertaining to “hate” and “inclusiveness.”

In reality, the SPLC is little more than a radical, leftwing activist organization that has systematically targeted its political opponents for years. The end result has been rampant censorship of any views the liberal group disagrees with, which has damaged many organizations financially and interfered with their ability to conduct business.

Finally, this leading hate group’s credibility is starting to crumble.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Not yet an AFP Online digital subscriber? A one-year subscription is only $25, or FREE with a full-price paid print subscription. Click here to review the various options for digital-only or digital/print subscriptions and subscribe today.




Radical Group Behind Culture Purge

The greatest eradication of heritage in America’s history has been spurred by the racist SPLC “law center.”

By Dr. Ed DeVries

It took roughly a century and a half to erect all of the nation’s Confederate monuments. A June 4 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) shows that since Dylann Roof shot nine black churchgoers in South Carolina three years ago, back on June 17, 2015, Confederate monuments are being torn down at the rapid pace of about three each month.

Some monuments were removed from prominent locations to great fanfare, like the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse grounds by former Gov. Nikki Haley or the removal by Mayor Mitch Landrieu of the four Confederate statues in New Orleans. But in most cases, like in Baltimore and in Memphis, city officials secretly removed Confederate monuments in the dead of night.

All told, at least 110 monuments to the Confederacy have been removed across the country in the last three years. Still, according to the same SPLC report, more than 1,728 listed monuments remain. And these do not include references to the Confederacy in museums, or the markers on hundreds of battlefields.

Kingdom Identity

According to the SPLC report, there are still 772 Confederate statues standing in 23 states and in Washington, D.C. All are the targets of organized SPLC removal campaigns. The report also lists 80 counties and cities named for Confederates as well as over 100 public schools named for Gen. Robert E. Lee, Confederate States President Jefferson Davis, or other Confederate icons. Of these schools, 39 have had their names changed to “non-offensive”  names in the last three years, but the SPLC has targeted all of them for organized efforts to have their names changed.

So far, the apparently not-so-great state of Texas leads the nation, having removed the most Confederate monuments. There, the SPLC claims to have successfully lobbied to remove 31 monuments. Still, dozens remain, according to Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s “Intelligence Project,” so their efforts continue. These efforts have been assisted by state House Speaker Joe Straus, who is calling for the removal of Confederate markers in the state capitol. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has made it clear that he will not intervene on behalf of the monuments, but Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) has spoken about the possibility of keeping at least some of them.

According to Beirich, her agency is committed to the removal of anything that “glorifies” the Confederacy. That means that all of Georgia’s 115 remaining monuments are going to have to go, as will all of Virginia’s 108 remaining monuments. The same goes for the 97 that remain in North Carolina, and for 20 other states that still host Confederate statues.

Also targeted are 23 Confederate holidays statutorily observed in 11 states, the names of 10 U.S. military bases—Fort Rucker (Gen. Edmund Rucker) in Alabama; Fort Benning (Brig. Gen. Henry L. Benning) and Fort Gordon (Maj. Gen. John Brown Gordon) in Georgia; Camp Beauregard (Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard) and Fort Polk (Gen. Leonidas Polk) in Louisiana; Fort Bragg (Gen. Braxton Bragg) in North Carolina; Fort Hood (Gen. John Bell Hood) in Texas; and Fort A.P. Hill (Gen. A.P. Hill), Fort Lee (Gen. Charles Lee), and Fort Pickett (Gen. George Pickett) in Virginia—the state flag of Mississippi, Grady and Rabun Counties in Georgia, Carroll County in Mississippi, Walton County in Florida, and the uniforms worn by state troopers in Alabama.

Many of these ongoing removal efforts, according to Ms. Beirich, will be complicated due to the fact that seven states have laws in place specifically designed to protect their Confederate monuments. These laws did not prevent the removal of other monuments. Still, the SPLC lawyers continue to work on new strategies.

More concerning to Beirich is her belief that, “President Donald Trump has sided with those who want to continue honoring the Confederacy, calling the removal of ‘beautiful’ monuments ‘foolish’ and tweeting that it is ‘sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart.’”

Also attacked in the report, and branded as “hate groups,” are the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). While currently lacking in numbers and having absolutely no political organization whatsoever, the UDC is the organization that several generations ago was largely responsible for erecting over half of our nation’s Confederate monuments. Today, the SCV shoulders much of the responsibility of caring for and defending those monuments.

The SCV is rapidly working to erect new memorials even as others are removed. “They’re taking them down, and we’re putting them up,” said Thomas V. Strain Jr., commander-in-chief of the organization.

The SCV has announced plans for the construction of a monumentally sized building in Columbia, Tenn. to house what will be The National Confederate Museum. The organization, on its website promoting the project, said the museum will counter attempts by opponents “to ban any and all things Confederate through their ideological fascism.”

It will not be a “Civil War” museum. Rather, the museum will tell the “Southern side” of the war. Strain said, “It’s not just dedicated to the soldiers, it’s dedicated to the wives and children who had to endure that five years of hell also.” He said, “We’ll have Southern uniforms there, not Union uniforms. We’ll have Southern artillery shells, not Northern ones.”

A pastor and in-demand traveling speaker, Dr. Edward DeVries is the editor of the Dixie Heritage Newsletter and a contributing editor at THE BARNES REVIEW. He is the author of 30 books including the two-volume Glory in Grey. Some of his other titles include Sacred Honor, The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag, Prayer is Simple, Every Member a Minister, and Coaching Youth Baseball the Right Way. He is also the host of TBR Radio’s “Dixie Heritage Hour.” Please check it out at www.BarnesReview.org.




A Fascist Right – or a Hysterical Left?

While it appears America is deep into a full-fledged societal breakdown, Pat Buchanan notes that recent headlines are not “unprecedented,” as some are saying, but “it’s not the 1960s, yet.” Regardless, the corporate media-induced devolution of the American Left into mindless hysteria and chaos is certainly well underway and we can only hope full-scale burning of cities is not next.  

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Trump’s supporters are truly “a basket of deplorables . . . racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” and “irredeemable,” as Hillary Clinton described them to an LGBT crowd, is not shunning and shaming the proper way to deal with them?

So a growing slice of the American left has come to believe.

Friday, gay waiters at the Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia, appalled that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was being served, had the chef call the owner. All decided to ask Sanders’s party to leave.

When news reached the left coast, Congresswoman Maxine Waters was ecstatic, yelling to a crowd, “God is on our side!”

Maxine’s raving went on: “And so, let’s stay the course. Let’s make sure we show up wherever . . . you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Apparently, the left had been issued its marching orders.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was heckled and booed at a Mexican restaurant last week, and then hassled by a mob outside her home. White House aide Steven Miller was called out as a “fascist” while dining in D.C. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was driven from a movie theater.

Last June, the uglier side of leftist politics turned lethal. James Hodgkinson, 66-year-old volunteer in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, opened fire on GOP congressmen practicing for their annual baseball game with the Democrats.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was wounded, almost mortally. Had it not been for Scalise’s security detail, Hodgkinson might have carried out a mass atrocity.

And the cultural atmosphere is becoming toxic.

Actor Robert De Niro brings a Hollywood crowd to its feet with cries of “F—- Trump!” Peter Fonda says that 12-year-old Barron Trump should be locked up with pedophiles. Comedienne Kathy Griffin holds up a picture of the decapitated head of the president.

To suggest what may be happening to the separated children of illegal migrants, ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden puts on social media a photo of the entrance to the Nazi camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

What does this tell us about America in 2018?

The left, to the point of irrationality, despises a triumphant Trumpian right and believes that to equate it with fascists is not only legitimate, but a sign that the accusers are the real moral, righteous, and courageous dissenters in these terrible times.

Historians are calling the outbursts of hate unprecedented. They are not.

In 1968, mobs cursed Lyndon Johnson, who had passed all the civil rights laws, howling, “Hey, hey, LBJ: How many kids did you kill today?”

After Dr. King’s assassination, a hundred cities, including the capital, were looted and burned. Scores died. U.S. troops and the National Guard were called out to restore order. Soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat upon. Cops were gunned down by urban terrorists. Bombings and bomb attempts were everyday occurrences. Campuses were closed down. In May 1971, tens of thousands of radicals went on a rampage to shut down D.C.

A cautionary note to progressives: Extremism is how the left lost the future to Nixon and Reagan.

But though our media may act like this is 1968, we are not there, yet. That was history; this is still largely farce.

The comparisons with Nazi Germany are absurd. Does anyone truly believe that the centers where the children of illegal migrants are being held, run as they are by liberal bureaucrats from the Department of Health and Human Services, are like Stalin’s Gulag or Hitler’s camps?

This is hyperbole born of hysteria and hate.

Consider. Two million Americans are in jails and prisons, all torn from their families and children. How many TV hours have been devoted to showing what those kids are going through?

Thirty percent of all American children grow up with only one parent.

How many TV specials have been devoted to kids separated for months, sometimes years, sometimes forever, from fathers and mothers serving in the military and doing tours of duty overseas in our endless wars?

Because of U.S. support for the UAE-Saudi war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, hundreds of thousands of children face the threat of famine. Those Yemeni kids are not being served burgers in day care centers.

How many Western TV cameras are recording their suffering?

When it comes to the rhetoric of hate, the cursing of politicians, the shouting down of speakers, the right is not innocent, but the left is infinitely more guilty. It was to the Donald Trump rallies, not the Bernie Sanders rallies, that the provocateurs came to start the fights.

Why? Because if you have been told and believe your opponents are fascists, then their gatherings are deserving not of respect but of disruption.

And, as was true in the 1960s, if you manifest your contempt, you will receive the indulgence of a media that will celebrate your superior morality.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



NATO’s Middle East Despot Tightens His Grip on Turkey

Turkey’s president is taking steps toward ensuring he rules the country for the foreseeable future. With an indefinite state of emergency in place, many of his political opponents in prison, and 98% of the media in his hands, it seems this former parliamentary representative democratic republic is well on its way to becoming a dictatorship.

By Richard Walker

The NATO leadership will soon have a Middle East despot in its ranks when Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan uses his control over all elements of governmental power to ensure he remains for the foreseeable future president of a country increasingly dominated by staunch Islamic principles.

In April this year, he reset the presidential and national elections scheduled for November 2019 to June 24, 2018 in a move calculated to exploit and consolidate his hold on the Turkish system, including the military, intelligence agencies, police, and judiciary. With many of his political opponents in prison, and 98% of the media in his hands, he plans to rule unchallenged. It is the classic strategy of a budding dictator, say his enemies.

Since July 15, 2016, when elements of his armed forces staged an abortive coup against him, he has arrested tens of thousands of members of the opposition, confining many to jail and political trials. Today, unknown numbers of people remain behind bars. They include civil servants, soldiers, judges, journalists, and university professors. Many have been accused of supporting an American-based cleric, Fetullah Gulen, who was once an Erdogan political ally. Erdogan has demanded Gulen’s extradition to Turkey, alleging he and his supporters in Turkey were behind the coup. So far, the Trump administration has refused to hand him over, creating a widening political gulf between Ankara and Washington.

MidEast Chess Board

Erdogan has used his power to transform Turkey from a secular state to an Islamic one. He has accused the U.S. of playing a role in the coup. Days after he crushed it, he had his military seize control of the massive U.S. military base at Incirlik. Unknown to members of Congress, it held nuclear weapons intended for use in a war with Russia. They have since been moved out of Turkey. Some sources believe they may have been relocated to bases in Europe. The Pentagon has denied reports that it has plans to scale down the U.S. military presence in Turkey, but some believe the process has already begun at Incirlik.

Erdogan was always a man with grand ambitions to dominate the Middle East, but the Turkish economy never performed up to his expectations. It is suspected he has called these snap elections because he knows the economy will continue to underperform over the next year. He hopes by then to have unfettered control of the reins of power.

Until 2016, sharing a border with Russia did not make him feel comfortable, but Russian leader Vladimir Putin has managed to convince him that Washington has no defined Middle East policy and Turkey’s interests are better served being close to Russia, China, Iraq, and Iran. Even Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper recognized the closeness of Turkey and Russia. Moscow has privately suggested that it will mediate a deal with his nemesis in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, permitting Turkey to ensure the Syrian Kurds do not become a problem on its border. Lately, Erdogan warned Washington that its alliance with the Syrian Kurds risks placing American forces in the firing line. It is a threat the Pentagon cannot dismiss.

As a leader who plans to elevate his status as a defender of Muslims in the region, he has cleverly adopted a confrontational tone with Israel over its slaughter of Palestinians. He has branded Netanyahu a terrorist and fascist and has labeled EU nations his enemies.

But it is in the political sphere in Turkey that he has proven to be astute and decisive. In the wake of the coup, he declared a state of emergency and then extended it indefinitely. When the parliamentary and presidential elections are over on June 24, political measures he has already inserted into the law will ensure that only a super majority in parliament will be able to force an investigation of him. That will insulate him legally and politically.

His argument for altering the balance of political power in Turkey is that giving him executive control is vital to preventing coups, led in the past by secular nationalists within the military who he claims were part of the deep state. He has gutted the intelligence services to ensure there are only committed Muslims in the upper echelons. He has either jailed or sacked senior military figures suspected of not being willing to commit to a loyalty pledge to him. Despite his efforts to eliminate threats, a deep state remains deeply embedded in the DNA of the country.

Whatever the future holds, there will be continuing erosion of Turkey’s attachment to NATO and Europe. In the late 1990s, Turkey had hoped to become a member of the EU, but the hope was dashed by fierce opposition from France, Germany, and Britain. At the core of their opposition was a fear that admitting Turkey would be akin to opening up Europe to a massive Muslim influx that would be dangerous and destabilizing. Erdogan has not forgiven the EU, and his resentment extends to NATO and the U.S.

Some security experts fear that Turkey will become a growing threat in the region. Some point to the anomaly that Turkey is on track to get America’s newest strike fighter, the F-35, while it installs the latest Russian S-400 missile shield that does not integrate with NATO’s own missile system.

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




How the CIA’s MK-Ultra Ruined Their Lives

A group of Canadians is fighting back against years of abuse under a secret experimental U.S. program, and it’s not the first time. A Canadian judge compensated 77 former victims of MK-Ultra in 1992. The U.S., whose CIA oversaw the mind-control program, has yet to see a similar suit successfully brought to trial.

By S.T. Patrick

Over 40 Canadians are striking back at one of the most notorious covert operations of the 20th century. Calling themselves Survivors Allied Against Government Abuse (SAAGA), the survivors recently gathered in Montreal to publicly share stories of the MK-Ultra abuse that destroyed their lives and their families. Their next step is to bring a class-action lawsuit against Canada’s national government in Ottawa.

The MK-Ultra class-action suit centers on the Allan Memorial Institute (AMI) in Montreal, a psychiatric hospital that also houses the Psychiatry Department of McGill University’s Royal Victoria Hospital.

As an extension of the CIA-funded MK-Ultra project, AMI doctors used sleeping medications, electroshock therapy, and hallucinogens such as LSD to experiment on unwitting patients. Some of the more troubling allegations consist of patients having been involuntarily sedated into a medically induced coma for weeks as loops of repeated statements or noise played.

Project MK-Ultra was a CIA mind-control program that was operated in conjunction with the Office of Scientific Intelligence and the U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories. The program officially operated from 1953 to 1973, but covert experimentation on the limits of the human mind existed before MK-Ultra and will exist into the future. Though CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all documents on MK-Ultra destroyed in 1973, a Freedom of Information Act request in 1977 uncovered over 20,000 documents that had been destined for eradication. More information was declassified to the public in 2001.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Implementation of the MK-Ultra program at the Allan Memorial Institute was undertaken by its founding director, Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron. Cameron served as the president of both the American Psychiatric Association from 1952-53 and the Canadian Psychiatric Association from 1958-59 before becoming the first head of the World Psychiatric Association in 1961.

In 1945, Cameron was part of a team that traveled to Germany during the Nuremberg Trials to evaluate Rudolf Hess, deputy führer to Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1941. Their diagnosis of Hess was hysteria and amnesia, but Cameron’s later analysis of German society was even more troubling, albeit completely fallacious. In his paper “The Social Reorganization of Germany,” Cameron argued for a complete reorganization of German society to prevent what he believed would be another threat to world peace in 30 years.

After the Manhattan Project regarding atomic weapons was revealed in the United States, he argued for the necessity of behavioral scientists to act as social planners in civilized societies. The United Nations, he argued, would then become the conduit by which psychiatric goals could be intertwined with globalism. Society, Cameron believed, should be divided between the “weak” and the “strong.” Those who could not handle the state of the world—as the globalists constructed it—would then be “weak,” while those who accepted its stark realities without rebellion would be “strong.”

Authors such as Naomi Klein have questioned the real reason for the AMI’s MK-Ultra experimentation. She believes that Cameron’s initial work at AMI was not about brainwashing. Instead, it was an effort to develop the art of torture and lay the groundwork for the CIA’s two-step psychological torture method. The focus on drug inducement and electroshock therapy was designed, according to Klein, to extract information from “resistant sources.”

Conspireality, Thorn
Conspiracies are real . . . and they assume many different forms. Order now from AFP.

As part of the MK-Ultra project, the United States psychiatric community also experimented widely with the suggestive power of hypnosis, with and without drugs. Richard Condon’s novel The Manchurian Candidate was released at the height of the MK-Ultra operations. It featured a presidential assassination attempt undertaken by a hypnotized, brainwashed subject. Since 1968, speculation has existed as to the role of hypnosis in the life of Sirhan Sirhan, imprisoned for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

To date, a similar class-action suit has not been filed in America. It could be that a similar group exists, carefully monitoring the Canadian case before filing.

Nancy Layton was admitted to Cameron’s care at the age of 18. She suffered from depression. Within six months of being treated by Cameron, Layton developed an acute schizophrenia that had not existed before she had been under Cameron’s care.

“I could not believe this was allowed,” Marlene Levenson, whose aunt was victimized by AMI’s mind-control program, told CTV Montreal. “These were innocent people who went in for mild depression—even if it was severe depression, postpartum, neurological things that happened—they came out completely ravaged and their life was ruined.”

This is not the first such legal case in Canada. In 1992, Justice Minister Kim Campbell compensated 77 former victims of MK-Ultra. Others were denied when they were deemed “not damaged enough.” The empirical level at which someone has to be damaged “enough” by his or her own government has yet to be set. The bar, however, should be low when a government harms the very people it is democratically meant to protect and serve.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent ten years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.




Guess What? Crying Girl Story Is Fake News

By AFP Staff

By now most people have seen the heartbreaking story of the young Honduran girl crying while peering up at her mother, who is surrounded and being patted down by Border Patrol agents. The assumption here was that the mother and her daughter were about to be torn apart as the child is sent to a children’s facility while her mother faces charges for illegally entering the U.S.

 

Ruling Elite
Get one year of AFP Online, the digital edition of American Free Press, FREE when you buy “The Ruling Elite: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation.” Add both items to your cart and use coupon code “Fake News.”

While the photograph being promoted by the mainstream media conveys the immediate terror of the young girl, it turns out the high drama being pushed by special interest groups and the mainstream media is fake. Of course, it fails to tell you what actually happened next to the woman and her child.

UK tabloid The Daily Mail reportedly tracked down the father, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, in Honduras. According to their report, the mother and daughter, Sandra, 32, and her two-year-old daughter Yanela Denise, have not been separated. Instead, the two were sent—together—to a family facility near the U.S. border.

More importantly, the narrative that the two were fleeing the horrors of Honduras is also patently false.

The father said that the mother and child made the dangerous journey without talking to him first. The couple has three other children, son Wesly, 14, and daughters Cindy, 11, and Brianna, six, yet the mother chose only to bring the youngest child.

“I didn’t support it,” he said. “I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day.”

While the father conceded that it is hard to find a decent job in the Central American country, he said he actually has a good one.

“I wouldn’t risk my life [to be smuggled across the border],” he said. “It’s hard to find a good job here and that’s why many people choose to leave. But I thank God that I have a good job here. And I would never risk my life making that journey.”

He added that he is not angry at his wife for taking his daughter away and paying human smugglers $6,000 to sneak them across the U.S. border.

“I don’t have any resentment for my wife, but I do think it was irresponsible of her to take the baby with her in her arms because we don’t know what could happen,” he said.

The mother and daughter were arrested by Border Patrol as they, along with a larger group of illegal immigrants, attempted to cross the Rio Grande River in the middle of the night on makeshift rafts.

“You can imagine how I felt when I saw that photo of my daughter,” concluded the father. “It broke my heart. It’s difficult as a father to see that, but I know now that they are not in danger. They are safer now than when they were making that journey to the border.”




Has the West the Will to Survive?

In a speech earlier this week, President Donald Trump rightfully said countries that do not have the strength to do the difficult things it needs to do to survive will cease to exist. Is this our future?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“If you’re . . . pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart, that’s a tough dilemma. . . . I’d rather be strong.”

So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump’s enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.

Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. But if the children cannot be separated from the parents as they await trial, both will have to be released to keep families together.

We are back to “catch and release.”

When that welcome news hits Central America, the migrant stream moving north will become a river that never ceases to flow.

Kingdom Identity

The questions America and the West face might thus be framed:

Is there a liberal, progressive, Christian way to seal a 2,000-mile border, halt millions of migrants from crossing it illegally, and send intruders back whence they came? Or does the preservation of Western nations and peoples require measures from which liberal societies today reflexively recoil?

Does the survival of the West as a civilization require a ruthlessness the West no longer possesses?

Consider what our fathers did to build this country.

The English settlers brought in 600,000 slaves, ethnically cleansed the Indians, joined their cousins in a war to expel the French, then revolted and threw out those cousins to claim all the land to the Mississippi for ourselves.

Jefferson grabbed the vast Louisiana Territory for $15 million from Napoleon, who had no right to sell it. Andrew Jackson drove the Spanish out of Florida, sent the Cherokee packing on the Trail of Tears, and told a dissenting Chief Justice John Marshall where he could go.

Sam Houston tore Texas away from Mexico. “Jimmy” Polk took the Southwest and California in a war Ulysses Grant called “the most unjust ever fought.” When the South declared independence, Lincoln sent a million-man army to march them back in a war that cost 600,000 lives.

William McKinley sent armies and warships to seize Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. The indigenous peoples were not consulted. “God told me to take the Philippines,” said McKinley.

The conquest and colonization of the New World and the creation of the United States and its rise to world power required acts of aggression and war of which many among our elites are ashamed. They exhibit their guilt by tearing down the statues of the men who perpetrated the “crimes” that created America. But of these elites, it may be fairly said: They could never have built a nation like ours.

Which brings us again to the larger questions.

While our forefathers would have not hesitated to do what was needed to secure our borders and expel intruders, it is not a settled matter as to whether this generation has the will to preserve the West.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
“Will America Survive to 2025?” On sale now at the AFP Online Store

Progressives may parade their moral superiority as they cheer the defeat of the “zero tolerance” policy. But they have no solution to the crisis. Indeed, many do not even see it as a crisis because they do not see themselves as belonging to a separate tribe, nation or people threatened by an epochal invasion from the Third World.

They see themselves as belonging to an ideological nation, a nation of ideas, whose mission is to go forth and preach and teach all peoples the gospel of democracy, diversity, and equality.

And this is why the establishment was repudiated in 2016. It was perceived as too elite, too liberal, too weak to secure the borders and repel the invaders.

“If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people,” said Trump Wednesday. Is he wrong?

Since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has grown apparent that the existential threat to the West comes not from Czar Vladimir’s Russian divisions returning to the Elbe.

The existential threat came from the south.

Half a century ago, Houari Boumedienne, the leader of a poor but militant Algeria, allegedly proclaimed at the United Nations:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

This is the existential crisis of the West.

Thus, Trump seeks to build a wall, turn back the intruders, and bring Vladimir Putin back into the Western camp, where Russia belongs. Thus the new populist regime in Rome blocks boats of refugees from landing in Italy. Thus Angela Merkel looks like yesterday, and Viktor Orban like tomorrow.

Patrick 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 2018 CREATORS.COM



Why Can’t We Sue the TSA for Assault?

It was reported recently that the TSA has created a list to track so-called “troublesome passengers.” If this is true, why can’t American citizens do the same or even sue TSA agents, who are especially troublesome, like the ones who harass kids and little old ladies in airport security lines? 

By Dr. Ron Paul

When I was in Congress and had to regularly fly between D.C. and Texas, I was routinely subjected to invasive “pat-downs” (physical assaults) by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). One time, exasperated with the constant insults to my privacy and dignity, I asked a TSA agent if he was proud to assault innocent Americans for a living.

I thought of this incident after learning that the TSA has been compiling a “troublesome passengers” list. The list includes those who have engaged in conduct judged to be “offensive and without legal justification” or disruptive of the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Libertarian journalist James Bovard recently pointed out that any woman who pushed a screener’s hands away from her breasts could be accused of disrupting the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Passengers like me who have expressed offense at TSA screeners are likely on the troublesome passengers list.

Perhaps airline passengers should start keeping a list of troublesome TSA agents. The list could include those who forced nursing mothers to drink their own breast milk, those who forced sick passengers to dispose of cough medicine, and those who forced women they found attractive to go through a body scanner multiple times. The list would certainly include the agents who confiscated a wheelchair-bound three-year-old’s beloved stuffed lamb at an airport and threatened to subject her to a pat-down. The girl, who was at the airport with her family to take a trip to Disney World, was filmed crying that she no longer wanted to go to Disney World.

The TSA is effective at violating our liberty, but it is ineffective at protecting our security. Last year, the TSA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), conducted undercover tests of the TSA’s ability to detect security threats at airports across the country. The results showed the TSA staff and equipment failed to uncover threats 80% of the time. This is not the first time the TSA has been revealed to be incompetent. An earlier DHS study found TSA screenings and even the invasive pat-downs were utterly ineffective at finding hidden weapons.

The TSA’s “security theater” of treating every passenger as a criminal suspect while doing nothing to stop real threats is a rational response to the incentives the TSA faces as a government agency. If the TSA puts up an appearance of diligently working to prevent another 9/11 by inconveniencing and even assaulting as many travelers as possible, Congress will assume the agency is doing its job and keep increasing the TSA’s budget. Because the TSA gets its revenue from Congress, not from airline passengers, the agency has no reason to concern itself with customer satisfaction and feels free to harass and assault people, as well as to make lists of people who stand up for their rights.

Congress should end the TSA’s monopoly on security by abolishing the agency and returning responsibility for security to the airlines. The airline companies can contract with private firms that provide real security without treating every passenger as a criminal suspect. A private security firm that assaults its customers while failing to detect real dangers would soon go out of business, whereas the TSA would likely have its budget and power increased if there was another attack on the U.S.

If shutting down the TSA is too “radical” a step, Congress should at least allow individuals to sue TSA agents for assault. Anyone who has suffered unfair treatment by the TSA as a result of being put on the “troublesome passengers” list should also be able to seek redress in court.

Making TSA agents subject to the rule of law is an important step toward protecting our liberty and security.

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, online at www.ronpaulinstitute.org.

 




Iraq War About Oil or Israel?

A new book by oil consultant Gary Vogler proves the U.S. waged war on Iraq to save Israel’s failing economy. “Neocons pushed so hard for war in large part because they intended to loot Iraqi oil on behalf of Israel.”

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

My 2008 book Questioning the War on Terror asked whether the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a resource war or a Zionist war.

At that time, liberals and leftists regularly accused President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of going to war for oil. “No blood for oil” was their protest chant.

It was obvious from day one that Iraq’s immense energy wealth had something to do with “Operation Iraqi Liberation,” but as sociologist James Petras has pointed out, the big oil companies were actually against the war. They would have preferred peace and stability—and Saddam Hussein was willing to give away the store if America would only take yes for an answer, as Susan Lindauer explains in her book Extreme Prejudice.

Petras, Stephen Sniegoski, and many others—including ex-CIA analysts Bill and Kathleen Christison in their 2003 article “Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq”—have marshalled strong evidence that the Iraq invasion was about Israel, not oil.

The architects of the Iraq war were all Zionist neoconservatives. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explained in April 2003 that the war on Iraq was “the war the neoconservatives wanted. . . . I could give you the names of 25 people who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.”

Iraq was one of the “seven countries in five years” targeted for destruction after 9/11, according to Gen. Wesley Clark. All seven were enemies of Israel. None posed any threat to the United States.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose first reaction to the 9/11 attacks was “it’s very good,” still felt that way in 2008: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Netanyahu insisted, according to a report in the April 16, 2008 edition of Israeli daily Ha’aretz.

9/11 and the subsequent American war against Muslim countries helped Israel in numerous ways. Besides “taking out” Israel’s enemies and balkanizing the Middle East in accordance with the Oded Yinon plan, the 9/11 wars also saved the Israeli economy, which in 2001 was on the brink of total collapse. As Naomi Klein writes in The Shock Doctrine (pp. 434-441), Israel was crushed by the dot-com crash, with 300 Israeli tech firms going bankrupt. During the run-up to 9/11, the Israeli government slashed social services to the bone and transferred all of its resources into “a slew of start-ups . . . specializing in everything from ‘search and nail’ data mining, to surveillance cameras, to terrorist profiling. When the market for these services and devices exploded in the years after Sept. 11, the Israeli state openly embraced a new national economic vision: The growth provided by the dot-com bubble would be replaced with a homeland security boom.”

Iraq & Politics of Oil, Vogler
Now available from the AFP Online Store!

Another way 9/11 and the 9/11 wars were designed to save Israel’s failing economy was recently revealed by oil consultant Gary Vogler. In his book Iraq and the Politics of Oil: An Insider’s Perspective. Vogler explains that the neocons pushed so hard for war in large part because they intended to loot Iraqi oil on behalf of Israel. As Douglas Feith’s former law partner Mark Zell explained, the neocons believed the boastful promises of wannabe puppet dictator Ahmed Chalabi:

“He said he would end Iraq’s boycott of trade with Israel and would allow Israeli companies to do business there. He said the new Iraqi government would agree to rebuild the pipeline from Mosul in the northern Iraqi oil fields to Haifa.”

As it turned out, the Mosul to Haifa pipeline was a non-starter. But Chalabi did succeed in stealing Iraqi oil and passing it to Israel at bargain basement rates, by forcing Iraq, against the wishes of almost all Iraqis, to sell oil to convicted swindler Marc Rich’s company Glencore, which has provided almost all of Israel’s oil since 1973.

And though Vogler doesn’t discuss ISIS and Kurdish black market oil sales to Israel, it appears that these and other methods have been used to leverage Iraqi oil to pump up Israel’s failing economy, which only survives thanks to trillions of dollars of tribute coughed up by American taxpayers.

Vogler ends his book with a warning: “The costs to the United States for invading Iraq were huge” (4,489 U.S. troops killed and 32,223 injured, over 134,000 Iraqi civilians and 150 reporters killed, 2.8 million refugees, $2 trillion wasted) “We cannot allow another group, such as the neocons, to push our country into a costly and unnecessary Middle Eastern war as they did in Iraq.”

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host.




If This Woman Still Has a Job by the End of Today…

By AFP Staff

Why is it that radical liberal activists only believe free speech and the First Amendment apply to them? Take the case of Allison Hrabar. According to conservative news and commentary website “The Daily Caller,” Ms. Hrabar was one of the activists who chased Homeland Security chief Kirstjen Nielsen out of a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C. on the evening of June 12 over the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

A Trump staffer outed Ms. Hrabar to “The Daily Caller,” saying she was part of the group that walked into the restaurant and then proceeded to harass Ms. Nielsen until she left the establishment.

In video that was posted to the Internet documenting the demonstration, activists can be heard chanting, “Kirstjen Nielsen, you’re a villain, locking up immigrant children.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Well, it turns out that Ms. Hrabar gets her paycheck from the Department of Justice working as a paralegal.

Over the past few years, dozens of conservatives have lost their jobs because of extracurricular activity that someone somewhere found to be offensive. AFP’s own reporter John Friend was one such victim when a radical keyboard activist tracked Friend down at his job with a local California government agency. Friend operates his own website where he writes about politics and history and occasionally dabbles in contentious issues.

This individual in question ended up harassing Friend’s boss, threatening to “expose” them for having Friend as an employee. Even though Friend was an exemplary employee who didn’t bring his politics to work, he was still unceremoniously fired.

Now, with her job apparently on the line, Ms. Hrabar is crying that she has a First Amendment right to protest after work hours.

This is how another conservative news website reported it: “The Washington Examiner spoke with Hrabar Wednesday and she defended her behavior as off government time and a use of her First Amendment rights.”

The problem is, apparently, Ms. Hrabar reportedly uses company time to tweet about politics.

According to “The Daily Caller,” Ms. Hrabar tweeted June 13 at 1:56 p.m., “Keeping families together in jail is not an acceptable solution.”

We at American Free Press actually support Ms. Hrabar’s First Amendment right to protest on her own time. However, you can’t have it both ways. If conservatives can be fired for their political views outside of work, then extreme liberals should not expect to be safe in their jobs, either.

You can watch the protest video here:




Gina Haspel’s New Vision for CIA?

Intel expert Philip Giraldi hopes new CIA Director Gina Haspel will reduce “questionable activities.” In spite of her pro-torture responses during her recent confirmation hearings, she did put her foot down once opposing expansion of the assassination-by-drone program. 

By Philip Giraldi

After a bruising confirmation fight, one wonders if newly approved Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Gina Haspel will have the political support to put her own stamp on how the agency is structured and operates. Insiders note that, though she was acting director for only two months, she did little more than continue the changes made by her predecessor Mike Pompeo, who had been in charge of the agency for 15 months.

The past 17 years have seen a major change in how the CIA is organized. The Cold War agency was basically divided into two major intelligence components and included an administrative structure as well as a scientific and technical division that had their own independent functions but also worked to support intelligence operations and analysis. To put it simply, the agency consisted of one half that collected information and another half that analyzed the information collected. The operations component, itself divided into geographical regions, was a producer of intelligence, which was then processed by the analysts before going on to the consumers, which consisted of the White House, Congress, and other agencies within the government with a “need to know” that gave them access to the finished intelligence reports. The principal consumer of intelligence and the CIA’s “boss” was and is the president of the United States.

Within the system of producer-consumer there were a number of staffs and centers that dealt with issues like terrorism, drug trafficking, and nuclear proliferation that were regarded as global threats that defied neat compartmentation into geographic areas. The Counter Terrorism Center (CTC), which included representatives from the Secret Service, FBI, DIA, NSA, and Pentagon, also incorporated analysts into the process, which was a major break from the principle that analysts and case officers should never mix lest the final product be contaminated by operational or political considerations.

Post 9/11, the allegations that clues to the hijackers had been missed due to excessive compartmentation within the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies meant that the idea of fusion centers like CTC became more popular. It also meant that there was a great demand for officers with paramilitary training to send to places like Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. Spies who had been trained to slowly and carefully develop Russian diplomats for recruitment became less relevant.

Kingdom Identity

Operations in places like Pakistan became brutal, with low-level agents working for money treated like disposable garbage. When CIA contract officer Raymond Davis was arrested by Pakistani police in 2011 after he shot dead two motorcyclists, who may or may not have been Pakistani intelligence officers, it emerged that he was part of an armed team providing security for meetings with Pakistani agents. Agents would be picked up off the street, stuffed behind the car seat with a blindfold on so they would not know where they were going, taken to a second car where they would be interrogated before they would be paid and again stuffed behind the seat blindfolded to be taken to a spot where they could be dropped off. As a model of CIA agent handling it was not exactly old school.

Inevitably the methodology of CIA operations involving the recruitment and debriefing of agents, referred to as tradecraft, began to be forgotten as older officers retired and the training of new officers emphasized new skills. The agency pretty much began to forget how to spy and how to deal with an untested agent, leading to catastrophes like the 2009 suicide bombing deaths of seven CIA officers at Camp Chapman near Khost in Afghanistan, where an agency base was run by an officer who lacked the relevant experience and made a major security mistake.

And meanwhile more and more of the annual budget was going to the paramilitaries, who provided the physical protection of the burgeoning number of CIA sites and also protection for meetings. The transition to a different agency structure accelerated under President Barack Obama and his director, John Brennan. Brennan favored replacing the former geographic structure with more fusion teams that would include analysts and representatives from other government agencies. Many at CIA believed that Brennan had a particular animus against agency operations, as he had entered CIA hoping to become a case officer but had washed out of the training course. Brennan pushed ahead with his fusion program and also promoted Greg Vogel to be head of Clandestine Services, once described as operations. Vogel was a paramilitary, not a case officer, and inside the CIA it was widely regarded as the final insult to the agency’s spies.

Haspel, who briefly held the position of acting director of the clandestine service, was an integral part of the Brennan regime and generally went along with his preferences, though a source reports that she did dig in her heels at one point when there was a proposal to greatly expand the assassination by drone program. If she did that, it is to her credit and perhaps an indication that she does have limits in terms of what she would do in support of the White House.

Let Trump Be Trump
Available at the AFP Online Store.

As a result of the 2016 election, there was inevitably a change at the top of the agency. Coming into a CIA that no longer knew how to spy, President Donald Trump’s new director, Mike Pompeo, moved quickly to reverse many of the decisions made by Brennan, but he also brought his own set of likes and dislikes. Officers who worked directly with Pompeo reported that he was controlling, insisting on support among senior officers for whatever policies the White House was promoting. This did not go down well at CIA, where officers prided themselves on being politically neutral with their only guideline being to report developments honestly and analyze objectively. Pompeo also institutionalized greater emphasis on Iran as a prime enemy, creating a task force to address it.

And now there is Ms. Haspel. Insiders believe she will move slowly and cautiously but will continue in the direction set by Pompeo. That means somewhat of a reversion to the traditional agency model, which prevailed when she was being trained and during her first assignments. And given her grilling by the Senate, she will be presumably very cautious about engaging in questionable activities. As a former case officer, I would have to think that is a good thing—traditional spying hopefully without the renditions, the black sites, and the torture.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.




Border Patrol Spokesman Sets Media Straight on Horrors of Illegal Immigration

By AFP Staff

Chris Cabrera, a spokesperson for the National Border Patrol Council, was on CNN yesterday not just to defend law enforcement efforts on the border but also to call out Congress for failing in its constitutional duty to solve the immigration crisis.

In the shocking interview, Cabrera recounted horror stories that Border Patrol agents experience on a daily basis while policing the U.S. border with Mexico.

“We’ve had this situation going on for four years now,” he said. “I don’t think you can necessarily blame it on one administration or another. It started under one and is continuing under another. It hasn’t been fixed and it needs to be fixed.”

MidEast Chess Board

Cabrera went on to cite some of the worst examples officers have faced as a result of the lax U.S. border enforcement.

“When you see a 12-year-old girl with a plan B [birth control] pill—her parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of the journey—that’s a terrible way to live,” he told CNN. “When you see a 4-year-old girl traveling alone with just her parents’ phone number written across her shirt. . . . We had a 9-year-old boy have heat stroke in front of us and die with no family around. That’s because we’re allowing people to take advantage of this system.”

The spokesman excoriated the mainstream media for focusing solely on the kids being separated from their families and missing the larger picture, which is continuing to send the message that if illegal immigrants will make the terrible journey to the U.S. border, they will be allowed entry. The onus is on Congress to make that stop, he added. The message has to be zero tolerance for illegal border crossings.

And for those likening U.S. Border Patrol officers to Nazis, he had this to say: “Most of our agents are parents. I’ve seen guys and I’ve done it myself—you give your last bottle of water to a kid, you’ll take a toy out of your car to give to one of these kids because you know the situation they’re in. Agents are very sympathetic. We’re human, we’re fathers, we have families. We do a lot for the communities here, whether or not a camera is involved. Our agents are very involved. And nobody saves more lives along the southwestern border than the U.S. Border patrol.”

You can watch the entire interview here:




Trump and the Invasion of the West

Pat Buchanan points out that “with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.” While the current policy of separating detained children from their illegal migrant parents is being widely condemned, he asks what policy will prevent the suicide of America.
By Patrick J. Buchanan

“It is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart,” says former first lady Laura Bush of the Trump administration policy of “zero tolerance,” under which the children of illegal migrants are being detained apart from their parents.

“Disgraceful,” adds Dr. Franklin Graham.

“We need to be . . . a country that governs with a heart,” says first lady Melania Trump. “No one likes this policy,” says White House aide Kellyanne Conway, even “the president wants this to end.”

And so it shall—given the universal denunciations and photos of sobbing children being pulled from parents. Yet striking down the policy will leave America’s immigration crisis still unresolved.

Consider. Since 2016, some 110,000 children have entered the U.S. illegally and been released, along with 200,000 Central American families caught sneaking across the border.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Reflecting its frustration, the White House press office declared:

“We can’t deport them, we can’t separate them, we can’t detain them, we can’t prosecute them. What (the Democrats) want is a radical open-border policy that lets everyone out into the interior of this country with virtually no documentation whatsoever.”

Where many Americans see illegal intruders, Democrats see future voters.

And with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.

The existential question, however, thus remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?

The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away.

And Europe’s southern border is more imperiled than ours.

A week ago, the new populist regime in Rome refused to allow a boat full of migrants from Libya to land in Sicily. Malta also turned them away. After a voyage of almost a week and 1,000 miles, 630 migrants were landed in Valencia, Spain.

Why did Italy reject them? Under EU law, migrants apply for asylum in the country where they first enter Europe. This burdens Italy and Greece where the asylum-seekers have been arriving for years.

Of the landing in Spain, Italy’s interior minister Matteo Salvini, a leader of the populist League party, chortled:

“I thank the Spanish government. I hope they take in the other 66,629 refugees (inside Italy). We will not be offended if the French follow the Spanish, the Portuguese, and Maltese, we will be the happiest people on Earth.”

If the migrants boats of the Med are redirected to Spanish ports, one suspects that the Spanish people will soon become as unwelcoming as many other peoples in Europe.

And Trump is not backing down. Monday he tweeted:

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

Whatever European leaders may think of him, many Europeans are moving in Trump’s direction, toward more restrictions on immigration.

In Germany, a political crisis is percolating. The Bavarian-based CSU, longtime coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, is now talking divorce if Merkel does not toughen German policy.

Merkel has never fully recovered from the nationalist backlash against the million migrants she allowed in from Syria’s civil war. A New Year’s Eve rampage in Cologne, featuring wilding attacks on German girls by Arabs and Muslims, cost her dearly.

Among the reasons Bavarians are pulling away from Berlin is that, being in the south of Germany, Bavaria is a primary point of entry.

Virtually every one of the populist parties of Europe, especially of the right, have arisen to contest or to seize power by riding the issue of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.

Yet the progressives adamantly refuse to act, apparently paralyzed by a belief that restricting the free movement of peoples from foreign lands violates one of the great commandments of liberal democracy.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
“Will America Survive to 2025?” On sale now at the AFP Online Store

We are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.

If Europe does not act, its future is predictable.

The population of Africa, right across the Med, is anticipated to climb to 2.5 billion by midcentury. And by 2100, Africa will be home to half of all the people of the planet.

If but a tiny fraction of the African and Middle Eastern population decides to cross the Mediterranean to occupy the emptying towns and villages of an aging and dying continent, who and what will stop them?

Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of this issue of separating migrant kids from their parents.

But on the mega-issue—the Third World invasion of the West—he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



What’s the Truth Behind Iconic Image of Crying Immigrant Toddler?

By AFP Staff

By now most people have seen the photographs of the crying toddler whose mother is being detained on the U.S. border. It’s been sent around the world and has sent social media into a tailspin. The Holocaust and Vietnam have been invoked. Headlines on the front pages of liberal newspapers and magazines have gone so far as to accuse President Donald Trump of being “soulless” and “craven” and even “ghoulish,” but, as with all things on the Internet, when one really looks at the context behind these photographs, while still heartbreaking, there is much more to the story than we are being told.

crying toddler
Credit: Getty Images

Earlier in June, Getty photographer John Moore had been documenting illegal border crossings as he travelled with U.S. Border Patrol agents on patrol in Texas along the Rio Grande on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico.

On June 12, Moore struck media gold when he was able to capture a few shots of a woman and her two-year-old daughter, who had been traveling for over a month from their native Honduras through Mexico and up to the U.S. border. One image shows the toddler crying as U.S. agents pat down her mother. In another, the mother is bent over and is removing the child’s shoelaces as the toddler looks on.

Credit: Getty Images

In the week since those photographs were taken, the image of a crying toddler staring at her mother has been used by Internet warriors against U.S. immigration policies and stoked fiery outrage on social media with some posters accusing law enforcement officials of being Nazi soldiers carrying out orders to gas Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.

As with many things on the Internet, however, the truth is far from what many rabid, anti-Trump fanatics want you believe.

In an interview yesterday with The Washington Post, Moore explained to a reporter that, while the photographs are heartbreaking, the Border Patrol officers were thoughtful and professional and tried to make the best out of a difficult situation.

The fact is, the woman and her child, who were detained along with dozens of others, broke U.S. law by entering the United States illegally.

Coming from countries where people are regularly executed on the spot by paramilitary forces and police for minor infractions, it is understandable that the detainees would be frightened. In the United States, however, this doesn’t happen. On the U.S. border, the illegal aliens, including the mother and her young daughter, were taken to an immigration processing facility where they were fed, given shelter, and provided with legal representation that is either paid for by charities or U.S. taxpayers.

Kingdom IdentityThe question of splitting up families remains a hotly debated issue. As part of a new policy enacted under Trump, children and their parents are sent to different sites. In some cases, this is for the good. For example, in refugee camps in Europe, entire families are allowed to stay together. In some of these camps sexual assaults and violence have even become rampant. Up until the current administration, only children traveling alone would be sent to special facilities. The so-called “zero tolerance” for illegal immigration has prompted officials to now break up families, sending mothers and fathers off to be prosecuted while their children are kept in special care sites that are solely for kids.

The truth is, the solution to all of this controversy is simple, and it is something that Trump has repeatedly asked for. Congress has to get involved and enact commonsense laws for processing illegal immigrants. Men and women can be segregated, but mothers should be allowed to remain with small children while they await either deportation or an asylum hearing.

Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) announced this morning that Republicans intend to introduce a bill in the House today narrowly focused on asylum issues and ending family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Washington needs to stop playing politics with immigration. While most Republicans want to secure the borders, most Democrats have fought this, as they see immigrants—especially ones who are angry at Republicans—as future voters.

Obviously, the priority should be to protect the American people by securing the border, but that doesn’t mean we have to give up our humanity in the process.




‘Jonestown’ 40 Years Later: Was Peoples Temple an Intel Op Gone Bad?

With the 40th anniversary of “The Jonestown Massacre” approaching, on November 18th, AFP offers a three-part series on the Rev. Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple, and the massacre/mass suicide that took over 900 lives in the jungles of Guyana.  

By S.T. Patrick

I: Jim Jones, the CIA & the FBI

Researcher Jim Hougan says the origins of famed cult leader Jim Jones are shrouded in intelligence activities. This is part one of three, originally published in American Free Press Issue 15 & 16, April 9 & 16, 2018.

Tragedy is often complex. In the mainstream media’s haste to explain the Nov. 18, 1978 massacre at Jonestown, Guyana, a quick resolution emerged. It was the oft-repeated, cautionary tale of a madman pushed beyond the brink of sanity. Moreover, it was a theme popularized in the “decade of decadence,” the 1970s.

Communal living had reached a peak of countercultural dissatisfaction, so much so that the media had turned its raging eye on these communities, which it now disparagingly called “cults.” Jonestown was portrayed as the failure of this anti-establishment movement. Its climax took the lives of over 900 men, women, and children, and was furthermore a glaring example of the imminent debacle incurred when following a fanatic “off the grid.”

Independent researchers and authors have disagreed with the mainstream mass media and have done so since the massacre occurred. What if Jonestown was not simply the inevitable result of a sociological experiment? What if anti-establishment movements are not doomed to fail on their own? And what if the rise of the Rev. Jim Jones was much more complicated than we had been told by Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, and Frank Reynolds in 1978?

Jim Hougan’s breakthrough as an author and researcher came with his alternative take on Richard Nixon’s downfall, Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA. He established himself as an authority on the 1970s with Decadence: Radical Nostalgia, Narcissism, and Decline in the Seventies, and examined the sordid relationship between the CIA and private industry in Spooks: The Private Use of Secret Agents.

His multi-part article “Jim Jones, Dan Mitrione, and the Peoples Temple”—available at “JimHougan.com”—is the culmination of decades of Jonestown research. Hougan combines Jones’s biography, FBI and CIA infiltration, and governmental shenanigans to uncover what really occurred in northwest Guyana, and how the parishioners of the Peoples Temple found themselves over 5,000 miles from the Bay Area of California.

James Warren Jones was born in Depression-era Indiana. A friend of his mother took Jones to church, where he found his religious zeal. He was soon taken under the wing of a female evangelist who led faith-healing revivals at the Gospel Tabernacle Church, a Pentecostal offshoot of the Holy Rollers. While no hard evidence of an inappropriate sexual relationship exists, Hougan reports that the beginning of Jones’s reptilian nightmares coincided with his association with the woman. His later tendency to sexually humiliate those who had angered him was lamented by those who remained loyal and may also have been a sign of sexual abuse experienced as a youth.

As a 15-year-old giving sidewalk sermons in economically depressed Richmond, Indiana, Jones met Dan Mitrione, the anti-communist police chief, whose path would repeatedly and not-so-coincidentally mimic that of Jones.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

Hougan infers that Mitrione may have recruited Jones as an informant within the black community. The Peoples Temple would include a predominantly black congregation, and Jones’s influence in the community was rising. Starting in 1956, the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) had observed, infiltrated, discredited, and disrupted subversive political and racial groups throughout the country. Mitrione’s ties to the FBI, the CIA, and Jones would continue throughout the remainder of his life. It was at this time that family members also report Jones engaging in private meetings with men they believed were government agents.

Indiana was quite a surprising hotbed of intelligence activity. The CIA’s Richard Helms and William Harvey were born in Indianapolis, and the University of Indiana, which Jones attended, was also the alma mater of the Symbionese Liberation Army’s Angela Atwood, William Harris, and Emily Harris. Hougan also ties the ownership of the Indianapolis-based Saturday Evening Post to CIA activity.

Jones purchased a former synagogue from Rabbi Maurice Davis in 1956. From the church’s history, Jones created the Peoples Temple name. Researchers are unsure how Jones may have raised the $50,000 used for the purchase, and Davis’s intentions in giving Jones a “little or no money down” deal are unknown. What is known is that Rabbi Davis was an anti-cult activist and “deprogrammer” associated with Dr. Hordat Sukhdeo, whom the State Department would later pay to travel to Guyana and bury Jones publicly as a cult leader.

Father Divine was the well-known “black messiah” of Philadelphia. His tens of thousands of Peace Mission followers earned him a seven-figure income, monitoring by the FBI, and Jones’s admiration. Jones visited Divine often and once, after Divine’s death, claimed he was the white reincarnation of Divine. Hougan speculates that Jones’s ultimate goal could have been integrating Divine’s followers into the Peoples Temple, but he also suggests that Jones could have been gathering “racial intelligence” under Mitrione’s guidance.

A biography of Divine was found in Jones’s effects in the aftermath of Jonestown. Within the biography, author Sara Harris alluded to mass suicide.

“If Father Divine were to die,” Harris wrote, “mass suicides among Negroes in his movement

could certainly result.”

This would not be the final time that the subject of mass suicide would interest Jones.

As the Peoples Temple continued to expand to over 2,000 parishioners, the reverend would make a curious decision to travel to Cuba and South America. He would not be alone. His experiences, his contacts, and his research would change the direction of the Peoples Temple and would lead them first to California and then to Guyana, where their end would be near.

II: Was Jim Jones an American Spy?

Biographers say the cult leader’s travels to Cuba and Brazil in the 1960s weren’t evangelism at all. They were actually intelligence missions. This is part two of three, originally published in American Free Press Issue 19 & 20, May 7 & 14, 2018.

By the end of the 1950s, the Reverend Jim Jones had grown his Peoples Temple to over 2,000 members. Considering this was the Cold War-era Midwest in a period long before the rise of mega-churches, Jones’s openly socialistic congregation was a surprising yet phenomenal success.

Jones was riding a meteoric rise as a pastor. Therefore, his actions in February 1960 become all the more curious and suspicious.

Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Che Guevara, and their 26th of July Movement had overthrown the CIA-Mafia puppet Fulgencio Batista in Cuba. In their first year, they were already countering incursions and bombings from U.S.-supported exiles working out of Miami. Vice President Richard Nixon was lobbying for and overseeing the formulation of a plan that would end with the Kennedy-era Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. From 1959-1963, Cuba was arguably the hottest epicenter of the Cold War.

In the midst of this political whirlwind, Jones inexplicably decided to travel to Havana. According to witness Carlos Foster, who met with Jones in Cuba, Jones was attempting to locate families willing to relocate to Indianapolis as part of a Peoples Temple recruitment project. Foster also claims Jones was scouting Latin American locations for potential extension centers.

Jones biographers, such as Tim Reiterman, disagree that the main purpose of the Cuban excursion was evangelism.

Reiterman reported that Jones later showed off photos from his Cuban trip. One such picture

featured a mangled pilot lying lifeless in the wreckage of a plane crash. Jones had also

claimed that he had met some Cuban leaders, and he showed a picture of himself with a fatigue-clad man that looked similar to Fidel Castro.

Jim Hougan, the author of the three-part “Jim Jones, Dan Mitrione, and the Peoples Temple,” which can be read on “JimHougan.com,” was more pointed when assessing Jones’s photographic travelogue.

“Pictures of that sort could only have been of interest to Castro’s enemies and the CIA,” Hougan wrote.

Under the guise of scouting safe places in case of a nuclear apocalypse, Jones then traveled to Brazil in 1962. En route, Jones stopped in Guyana, which was still a British colony. Jones learned of another mass suicide story that had long been a part of Guyanese history.

While in Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro, Jones socialized with American expatriates and Brazilians who were rabid anti-communists. Hougan compares Jones’s time in Brazil to Lee Harvey Oswald’s time in New Orleans in 1963.

Jones was not alone in Brazil. Dan Mitrione was serving at a post within the U.S. consulate. Many, including Hougan, believe Mitrione was an intelligence handler for Jones dating back to their time in Richmond, Ind.

According to Jones, the emotional effects of the John F. Kennedy assassination led him back to Indiana in late 1963. What he returned to was a congregation whose attendance had dissipated to less than a hundred parishioners. Mainstream chroniclers of Jonestown have posited that Jones was sightseeing and gallivanting through Latin America, taking in the culture as an uber-tourist. Meanwhile, the church he had worked so hard to build—and the church so tied to what he professed as his true ideology—was all but dismantling without him. This has led revisionists to further contend that there was some covert mission that guided the travels of both Jones and Mitrione.

New World Order Assassins, ThornAgain using nuclear war as a reason for mobility, Jones returned to Indiana briefly, only to move the Peoples Temple to northern California, outside of Ukiah. Unlike the anti-communism he had professed in Brazil, he again turned to “apostolic socialism” in his sermons. Jones’s dogma becomes quite confusing at this point, as he begins publicly preaching against Christianity, the King James Version of the Bible, and God.

Within five years, Jones’s popularity had grown, and he had opened Peoples Temple branches in the center of the FBI’s COINTELPRO heartland—San Francisco, San Fernando, and Los Angeles. Templars also became more active in California politics. Their support was vital to San Francisco Mayor George Moscone’s win in 1975. In turn, Moscone appointed Jones as the head of San Francisco’s Housing Authority Commission.

The Peoples Temple had found a large following in the Golden State. They had also found allies in assemblyman Willie Brown, Gov. Jerry Brown, Lt. Gov. Mervyn Dymally, Harvey Milk, Walter Mondale, and Rosalynn Carter.

While California brought Jones and the Peoples Temple more notoriety, it also attracted more scrutiny. When an exposé in New West magazine criticized Jones and the Temple, the reverend could see that his house of cards was about to crumble. Journalist Marshall Kilduff would allege physical, emotional, and sexual abuse inside the Peoples Temple. It was time to flee California and the United States, altogether.

In the summer of 1977, Jones and his most influential members decided the time had come for what would be a final pilgrimage to the place where they believed they would be most free—Guyana.

III: No Mass Suicide at Jonestown?

Very few of the official “Kool-Aid” theories have proven to be conclusive, and research indicates that most Peoples Temple followers tragically died by injection—not ingestion. This is the conclusion of our three-part series, originally published in American Free Press Issue 23 & 24, June 4 & 11, 2018.

Rep. Leo Ryan (D-Calif.) had just been elected to a fourth term when he traveled to the Jonestown settlement of Rev. Jim Jones in northwest Guyana. Acting on the pleas of family members whose loved ones had joined the Peoples Temple, Ryan was investigating the charge that his constituents were being held in the South American country against their will.

Ryan was a crusading congressman. As an assemblyman, he had taken a substitute teacher position in south central Los Angeles so that he could document the conditions after the Watts riots of 1965. He later used a pseudonym to enter Folsom Prison as an inmate, just to investigate firsthand the conditions behind the bars of California prisons. Whether societal or penal, Ryan was a keen observer of what it was to be or feel trapped. On Nov. 1, 1978, he announced that he was going to Jonestown. In what would later prove an interesting turn of history, he asked friend and fellow congressman Dan Quayle (R-Ind.) to travel to Guyana with him. Quayle declined.

While at Jonestown, Ryan’s entourage was privately approached by a handful of members who desired to leave Guyana. He was nearly stabbed in one domestic dispute. On Nov. 18, 1978, Ryan, his aides, a team of journalists, and the defectors were scheduled to return to America from the Port Kaituma airstrip. An ambush by Jones loyalists prevented their return. Ryan, a defecting Peoples Temple member, and three journalists were killed. Nine others were injured, including aide Jackie Speier, now a Democratic congresswoman from California.

As tragic as the scene at the airstrip was, no one could have imagined what was happening simultaneously at Jonestown. News reports leaked quickly. Something had gone drastically wrong at Jonestown and had resulted in over 200 deaths. In succeeding days, the number of reported deaths increased until it finally rested at over 900. The news media reported it as a mass suicide, but questions persisted regarding how massive the numbers of suicides actually were.

It was said that one-by-one, the Templars came forward to drink the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid (it was actually Flavor Aid) concocted for such a moment. The cause was the effective brainwashing of a religious fanatic.

Very few of the official theories proved to be conclusive, however.

Only seven autopsies were performed, and all seven were conducted after the bodies had been embalmed. “Probable cyanide poisoning” was listed as the cause of death in five of the seven bodies, yet only one showed any traces of cyanide. No cyanide could be detected in the Flavor Aid vat upon examination.

The body of Jones was one of the autopsied corpses. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head. Temple member Ann Moore had two causes of death, though it is unclear which occurred first. The autopsy listed a gunshot wound to her head, along with a massive amount of cyanide in her body tissues.

Guyanese physician Dr. Leslie Mootoo conducted cursory examinations of 100 bodies. Mootoo found that 83 of the 100 bodies had needle puncture wounds on the backs of their shoulders, suggesting that a majority of the victims were held down and injected against their will. Because they could not have legally chosen to die, all 260 children were considered murdered. In all, Mootoo estimated that over 700 of the bodies were victims of murder.

The idea of Jonestown as a “mass suicide” was perpetuated by Dr. Hardat Sukhdeo, a psychiatrist who was summoned to Guyana at the expense of the U.S. State Department. Sukhdeo was also an anti-cult deprogrammer. Dr. Stephen P. Hersh, then assistant director of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), disagreed with Sukhdeo’s findings.

“The charges of brainwashing are clearly exaggerated,” Hersh told the Associated Press in 1978. “The concept of ‘thought control’ by cult leaders is elusive, difficult to define and even more difficult to prove. Because cult converts adopt beliefs that seem bizarre to their families and friends, it does not follow that their choices are being dictated by cult leaders.”

When Jones’s CIA case officer Dan Mitrione was murdered in Montevideo, Uruguay in 1970, the military personnel, or 201, file on Jones was purged, thus erasing any pre-1970 information the CIA may have gathered on Jones.

Author Jim Hougan of “JimHougan.com” offered his assessment of the fear that Ryan’s investigation struck in the establishment.

“Specifically, Jones was afraid that Ryan and the press would uncover evidence that the leftist founder of the Peoples Temple was for many years an asset of the FBI and the CIA,” Hougan wrote. “This fear was, I believe, mirrored in various precincts of the U.S. intelligence community, which worried that Ryan’s investigation would embarrass the CIA by linking Jones to some of the agency’s most volatile programs—including ‘mind-control’ studies and operations such as MK-ULTRA.”

New World Order Exposed, ThornJust as the horrific Charles Manson case figuratively ended the free-spirited 1960s, Jonestown ended the 1970s ideal that communal living was the backbone of a utopian existence. It also ended the rise of the super-preacher whose goal was the creation of an isolated group of parishioners. The 1980s ushered in a media that would chase evangelical superstars for their sexual and financial misdeeds, but even the televangelists’ most loyal followers would not have given their lives at the behest of their leader. The most devout Christians reflexively feared “another Jonestown.”

There is a mainstream version of the Jonestown story that is easy to understand. Its mythology reviles new religions and turns Jones’s church members into weak-minded devotees. To believe that Jonestown is understood only within these confining terms is a mistake.

There was a reason the edicts of Jones of Indiana were appealing. Jones’s own spook-filled, covert story is integral to Jonestown’s real history. To understand those complexities within the era in which they occurred is to understand the story in full. Jonestown, like the Patty Hearst kidnapping, is the effect of a COINTELPRO operation gone awry much more than it is a religious abyss.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.