Israeli Accountability Begins Now

Spying for the Israeli government has turned into a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

By Philip Giraldi

Recently returning to the U.S. on a flight from Venice, too-bored-to-read syndrome drove me to watch a movie. I chose “Bohemian Rhapsody,” which recently won an Academy Award for lead actor Rami Malek, who truly did turn in a memorable performance in a film that was otherwise plodding and predictable. As the credits were rolling, I noticed that the movie’s executive producer was none other than Arnon Milchan, an Israeli media billionaire who has spent most of his career in Hollywood. My immediate thought was, “Why is this scumbag still making movies in Hollywood? Why isn’t he in jail?”

Milchan earned my opprobrium the easy way, by spying for Israel to the detriment of the country that has made him rich and relatively famous, which is the United States of America. The Milchan tale is just one part of the successful effort by Israel to obtain the technology and raw materials for its secret nuclear arsenal. Preventing nuclear proliferation was a major objective of the U.S. government when in the early 1960s President John F. Kennedy learned from a CIA report that Tel Aviv was developing a nuclear weapon. He told the Israelis to terminate their program or risk losing American political and economic support but was killed before any steps were taken to end the project.

Israel always features prominently in the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage.” The 2005 report stated that, “Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel’s sizable armaments industry.”

National Coin Investments

The Mossad frequently uses so-called sayanim in its espionage, which means diaspora Jews that it recruits on the basis of a shared religion or concern for the security of Israel. The threat coming from Israeli embassy operatives inside the United States is such that the Department of Defense once warned that Jewish Americans would likely be the targets of intelligence approaches.

Israel accelerated its nuclear program after the death of Kennedy. By 1965, it had obtained the raw material for a bomb consisting of U.S. government-owned highly enriched weapons-grade uranium obtained from a company in Pennsylvania called NUMEC, which was founded in 1956 and owned by Zalman Mordecai Shapiro, head of the Pittsburgh chapter of the Zionist Organization of America. NUMEC was a supplier of enriched uranium for government projects but it was also from the start a front for the Israeli nuclear program, with its chief funder David Lowenthal, a leading Zionist, traveling to Israel at least once a month where he would meet with an old friend, Meir Amit, who headed Israeli intelligence. NUMEC covered the shipment of enriched uranium to Israel by claiming the metal was “lost,” losses that totaled nearly 600 pounds, enough to produce dozens of weapons. Such was the importance of the operation that in 1968 NUMEC even received a private incognito visit from spymaster Rafi Eitan.

Also, there was physical evidence relating to the diversion of the uranium. Refined uranium has a technical signature that permits identification of its source. Traces of uranium from NUMEC were identified by Department of Energy inspectors in Israel in 1978. The Central Intelligence Agency has also looked into the diversion of enriched uranium from the NUMEC plant and has concluded that it was part of a broader program to obtain the technology and raw materials for a nuclear device for Israel.

With the uranium in hand, the stealing of the advanced technology needed to make a nuclear weapon is where Milchan comes into the story. Milchan was born in Israel but moved to the United States and eventually wound up as the founder-owner of a major movie production company, New Regency Films. In a Nov. 25, 2013 interview on Israeli television Milchan admitted that he had spent his many years in Hollywood as an agent for Israeli intelligence, helping obtain embargoed technologies and materials that enabled Israel to develop a nuclear weapon. He worked for Israel’s Bureau of Science and Liaison Acquisition division of Mossad, referred to as the LAKAM spy agency.

Milchan, a long-time resident of the United States who clearly still has significant business interests in this country as evidenced by “Bohemian Rhapsody,” explained in his interview, “I did it for my country, and I’m proud of it.” He also said that “other big Hollywood names were connected to [his] covert affairs.” Among other successes, he obtained through his company Heli Trading 800 krytons, the sophisticated triggers for nuclear weapons. The devices were acquired from the California top-secret defense contractor MILCO International. Milchan personally recruited MILCO’s president Richard Kelly Smyth as an agent before turning him over to another Heli Trading employee Benjamin Netanyahu for handling. Smyth was eventually arrested in 1985 and cooperated in his interrogation by the FBI before being sentenced to prison, which means that the federal government knew all about both Milchan and Netanyahu at that time but did not even seek to interview them and ultimately did nothing about them.

I would like to think that the next time Milchan arrives at Los Angeles International Airport on business he will be met by federal marshals and FBI agents before being whisked off to some nice, quiet place for a chat. But don’t bet on it. Milchan is possibly no longer traveling regularly to the U.S., though he retains a residence in California, and his “confession” suggests that he believes himself to be bulletproof. He has also recently been involved in a bit of controversy in Israel itself, where the police have recommended that he be charged with bribery connected with the ongoing investigation of corruption by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Milchan, it seems, spent one million shekels ($250,000) on luxury items that he gave to Bibi as a reported quid pro quo to exempt his substantial income from taxes when he returned to Israel to live in 2013.

In an interesting additional element to that story, the police investigation determined that in 2014 Netanyahu approached then-Secretary of State John Kerry to intervene and arrange for a long-term American visa for Milchan, who was at the time dealing with difficulties relating to his U.S. status, possibly due to the 2013 admission that he had been spying. In any event, the visa was granted and Milchan continued to make more movies, and money, in Los Angeles.

The tragedy is that spying for Israel appears to be regarded as something like a victimless crime, but in the case of Milchan it was dead serious, involving as it did nuclear proliferation on behalf of a nation that might generously be described as aggressively paranoid. And note that Netanyahu, the very “statesman” who received 29 standing ovations from Congress, was also involved in the major Mossad operation to steal from the United States. In fact, even though the Israelis continue to rob America blind, it is extremely difficult to be punished for doing so.

Kingdom Identity

Prosecutions for Israeli spying are so few because the Department of Justice is unwilling to pursue them, according to a retired FBI agent who claimed that hundreds of potential prosecutions were rejected for political reasons. The actual convictions involve crimes so egregious that they cannot be ignored or covered up, like conversations overheard at lunch, as when Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin provided intelligence on Iran to American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen, as well as to officials in the Israeli embassy. Franklin went briefly to jail and was recently reported to be waiting tables in West Virginia.

U.S. Navy analyst Jonathan Pollard, America’s most damaging spy of all time, stole enough top-secret codeword material to fill a room before he was arrested and convicted. He obtained Israeli citizenship while in prison and is now free on parole, living in New York City. Apart from that, nada!

Time to change all that. Milchan and others are not friends of the United States but quite the contrary, and deserve to be treated like any other spy. The American people should demand that the government begin to recognize that fact and act accordingly. Telling Hollywood that it is not good PR to keep allowing Israeli spy Milchan to make millions is a possibility, but sanctioning him to put him out of business would be an even better place to start.

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.

Civil Rights Award Yanked Over ‘Anti-Semitic’ Remarks

Leftists are okay with Angela Davis’s terroristic background but rescinded their decision to grant her a human rights award due to her support of the BDS movement and of Palestinians’ human rights. Apparently only some humans should have rights.

By S.T. Patrick

Angela Davis has led a career and a life that has attracted controversies, criticisms, and bans. The most recent was a rescinding of the Fred Shuttlesworth Human Rights Award given by the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (BCRI). Citing that Davis’s opinions and remarks do not “meet all of the criteria on which the award is based,” Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin decided against the October decision to present the award to Davis.

BCRI’s decision comes at a time in the nation’s history when political correctness and the wildly shifting levels of “acceptable speech” reach a new, more disturbing apex on what appears on a weekly basis. Davis’s new crime of opinion—or “thought crime,” in the words of 1984 author George Orwell—was that she has been a longtime vocal supporter of Palestinian rights and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

BCRI’s decision to rescind the award is surprising, as Davis’s views on Israeli state policy and the ideology of Zionism are not new. In his 1992 book Chutzpah, attorney Alan Dershowitz famously described Davis’s response when he asked her for a public statement in support of a list of political prisoners being held in the USSR.

Davis told Dershowitz that none of the people on his list were political prisoners. “They are all Zionist fascists and opponents of socialism,” Davis explained.

Davis, an icon of the 1960s Black Panther Party, has also referred to the Israeli “occupation” of Palestine and has compared the Israeli treatment of Palestinians to American police shootings of African-Americans. She comes from a larger-than-life era where slogans, key words, and political posters ruled the day. She, like many others from that same era, speaks in anecdotes and analogies.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

In 1969, Gov. Ronald Reagan (R-Calif.) attempted to have Davis banned from teaching at California universities because of her affiliation with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). She was twice a candidate for vice president on the CPUSA ticket in the 1980s when Reagan was president. She left the CPUSA when it supported the Soviets’ 1991 “August Coup” attempt. The coup was led by communist hardliners attempting to wrest control from Mikhail Gorbachev.

In the new millennium, Davis has worked largely in support of the prison abolition movement. She co-founded Critical Resistance (CR) to build a groundswell of grassroots supporters dedicated to working against the “prison-industrial complex.” CR’s efforts are focused on building “engaged communities” that can educate and heal people rather than caging them.

Ten Myths About Israel, Ilan Pappe
Outspoken Israeli historian examines the most contested ideas concerning the origins and identity of the contemporary state of Israel. Now at the AFP Online Store.

There has been a reflexive reaction by conservatives to support the rescinding of the award. In a parallel story, there has also been conservative (and some liberal) support to admonish Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for her comments explaining both the definition of an Israeli lobby and her criticism of politicians who, for financial reasons, would adhere to the demands of a foreign lobby. President Donald Trump ridiculously called for Omar’s resignation.

Criticizing Davis and Omar is certainly within the bounds of free speech in a constitutional republic. The danger comes in the quick, negative labeling of people and politicians. When Republicans are irrationally labeled as “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” or “jingoistic,” they rightly balk and demand retractions. So, is the quick labeling of Davis and Omar as “anti-Semitic” a tit-for-tat for Republicans wanting to turn the linguistic tables? If it is, it’s a petty lesson that will not be learned, no matter how many times it is taught. Instead, mouthpieces from both parties should realize how unconstructive it is to promote labels over arguments and verbal stings over vast solutions.

The rescinding of Davis’s award was a sloppy public relations faux pas by local politicians who believed they were doing the politically correct thing for the sake of political correctness, to maintain their wholly unoffensive PC cred. Rather, what they did was discover that the game isn’t real, and the maneuvers are contrived. Truth is truth and courage is courage, no matter what words are used in their explanations.

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 [email protected] He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication carried by the AFP Online Store.

Supreme Court Can Right Past Wrongs

Will the Bladensburg, Md. Peace Cross be the next Christian symbol to be ripped down? The American Humanist Association is working toward that end. Now, the fate of this memorial to World War I veterans rests with the U.S. Supreme Court justices.

By Dave Gahary

The 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Peace Cross—located less than 15 miles from this newspaper’s headquarters—was built in 1925 to honor local military men who died in World War I. Now, it is under attack by some strange birds from Bladensburg, Md. supported by the American Humanist Association (AHA), a U.S. non-profit whose main mission seems to be removing any and all references to religion and God from the public square.

Founded in 1941, the AHA lawyers-up those whose “constitutional rights” are allegedly breeched, actively lobbies Congress on the mythologized concept of “church-state separation,” and does a whole lot of other things that poison our constitutional republic.

The mothers of these 49 Maryland soldiers who paid the ultimate price for their country over 100 years ago “designed the memorial to mirror the crosses that mark graves in American cemeteries overseas.” A plaque reads, “This Memorial Cross Dedicated to the Heroes of Prince George’s County who gave their lives in the great war for the liberty of the world” and lists the names of the dead, a sweet piece of history obviously lost on Fred Edwords and Steven Lowe, who are particularly offended by the memorial. Never mind that almost all of the boys (and girls) who served and continue to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces are Christians.

In 1961, after a highway was built around it, the Peace Cross was deeded to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and stood there without controversy until 51 years later, when the aforementioned ill-advised snowflakes sued, “arguing that they are offended by the government’s endorsement of religion and the fact that the cross is maintained with taxpayer money.” A district court ruled for the cross at that time, but five years later, the Richmond, Va.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision, ruling that “the government had excessively entangled itself with religion.”

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

Of course, the enemies of the republic are using the document meant to amend the newly created U.S. Constitution, the so-called Bill of Rights, in particular the first 16 words from Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Although the “Free Exercise Clause” and the “Establishment Clause” are still debated by constitutional scholars, there is no question that God and religion were central in the lives of our founding fathers, so much so that James Madison Jr., the fourth U.S. president (1809-1817), known as the “Father of the Constitution,” “wrote near the end of his life that belief in God was ‘essential to the moral order of the world.’ ”

As Mark R. Levin explained in Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America (2005), “At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, America was an extremely religious nation.” “The framers,” he wrote, “never envisioned a time where the mention of God in the public square would be controversial, let alone illegal in certain circumstances.” In fact, said Levin, “The historical record is filled with examples of officials of the federal government invoking God during the same period that the Bill of Rights was ratified.”

So how did we get to the point that the mere mention of God in the same sentence as the word government causes many to cringe?

It all began at the turn of the 19th century, when the Danbury [Conn.] Baptist Association sent a letter on Oct. 7, 1801 to President Thomas Jefferson, “expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.” Jefferson wrote back on Jan . 1, 1802, saying in part:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Fast-forward to the middle of the 20th century, when in 1947 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Hugo Black, a Ku Klux Klan member and “longtime admirer of Jefferson, revived a previously obscure metaphor from Jefferson’s writings,” and “upended the long-standing balance between the government and religion in . . . Everson v. Board of Education.”

In his 1802 letter, Jefferson was merely explaining why he didn’t support “national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as George Washington and John Adams, his predecessors in office, had done,” not defining any wall of separation.

Despite this, wrote Levin, “the ‘wall’ is part of the lexicon of many Supreme Court cases that involve religion and it has led to an inconsistent and illogical series of decisions,” like 1962’s Engel v. Vitale, “a controversial and dubious decision that was at odds with American history,” which outlawed state-sponsored prayer, 1992’s Lee v. Weisman, which ruled that schools can’t sponsor clerics to conduct any type of prayer, or 2004’s Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the Pledge of Allegiance ran afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Available from the AFP Online Store.

Of course, as Levin explains in his fine book, this clause “was never intended to ban the invocation of God in public forums or the voluntary participation in ‘ceremonies or rites that recognize God.’ In other words, it was never intended to create a strict wall of separation between church and state,” a term that, of course, appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Significantly, SCOTUS’s decision “could impact similar memorials in towns across the country and even Arlington National Cemetery,” states a Feb. 26 CNN article. The national cemetery holds two crosses, one a “13-foot-tall Latin cross called the Argonne Cross, dedicated in 1923 to the ‘memory of our men in France,’ ” and a 24-foot-tall Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, “donated by the Canadian government to honor Americans who died in war.”

While the Trump administration has voiced support for the Peace Cross, SCOTUS justices typically pay little mind to political preferences. SCOTUS heard oral arguments on Feb. 27, and we can expect a decision by late June.

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. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.

Amazon Bans More Books by Respected Scholars

One suggestion for dealing with Amazon’s book-burning spree is to nationalize the company, which has a “monopoly in the digital public sphere,” and put Jeff Bezos on trial for treason.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America—and American tradition—enshrines freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Nowhere is this more evident than in the book publishing industry. Historically, few books have been banned or restricted in America for any reason other than obscenity or indecency, and even those restrictions have largely collapsed. Since the mid-1960s, a book can only be banned if a reasonable person would consider it prurient, in violation of contemporary community standards, and completely devoid of literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

But since 2017 our tradition of freedom from book censorship has been annihilated. We are living through the worst-ever assault on the Bill of Rights. This crime is being committed by a monopoly in service to an organized crime syndicate. Amazon, under pressure from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and allied groups, has “kindled” the biggest book-burning bonfire ever. And the books Amazon is burning are not those brimming with obscenity. You can still buy the Marquis de Sade’s pornographic incitements to rape, torture, and murder, alongside thousands of similar abominations, on Amazon. What you can’t buy are scholarly books that carefully and dispassionately document facts that pose a threat to the continued reign of what certain hotheads have (not entirely inaccurately) called ZOG, the Zionist Occupation Government.

National Coin Investments

On March 11, Amazon—which holds an effective monopoly on book sales in the United States—notified professor Kevin MacDonald that two of his scholarly books, The Culture of Critique and Separation and Its Discontents, had been banned: “During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale.”

What content, specifically? Which guidelines did it violate, and how?

MacDonald reports: “In subsequent emails, they just keep repeating that these books were found to violate ‘content guidelines,’ even though I pointed out that they were published 21 years ago by a respected academic publisher. No specifics. No appeal process.”

Amazon doesn’t just ban scholarly works by professors who advocate for white people. America’s leading pro-black-people historical research team, the Nation of Islam (NOI) Research Group, has also been the victim of an Amazon book-burning bonfire. In his article “American Pravda: Amazon Book Censorship: Banning Black Historiography During Black History Month” Ron Unz discusses Amazon’s scandalous banning of the NOI Research Group’s multi-volume series The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. Volume 3 of that series convincingly exposes the ADL as an organized crime syndicate founded to protect the Jewish rapist and murderer Leo Frank.

Though I do not agree with MacDonald or NOI about everything, I cannot help but recognize that their banned books feature high-quality scholarship. The same cannot be said of the rabidly Islamophobic books of Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and a long list of other Zionist-funded propagandists who together make up the $50-million-per-year Islamophobia industry. Though almost uniformly characterized by poor scholarship and reckless animosity to the people they write about, these authors are not only allowed to sell their deceptive and hateful wares on Amazon but are relentlessly promoted by Zionist big money. In other words, essentially the same organized crime syndicate is forcing Amazon to ban dispassionate scholarly works as “hate,” while simultaneously spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting actual hate propaganda sold by the boatload on Amazon.

Spencer, the Zionist-paid hate propagandist who inspired child-murderer Anders Breivik, is peddling 37 very bad books on Amazon. At least nine editions of Hitler’s Mein Kampf are likewise being sold there. Thousands of books that offend modern liberal sensibilities are equally available. So are books that offend traditional conservative sensibilities. And that is as it should be! Two-bit hate hacks like Spencer, as well as important historical figures like Hitler, should be refuted, not silenced.

And speaking of Hitler: The current wave of Amazon censorship began two years ago with the wholesale banning of revisionist books about World War II. On March 6, 2017, Amazon banned 68 titles from Castle Hill Publishers, which specializes in scientific and forensic historical investigations. Germar Rudolf of Castle Hill asserts that his company was not the only one targeted, and that, in fact, hundreds of revisionist history books were banned that day.

Our Constitution, and the tradition of liberty it enshrines, is being shredded. But there is a simple solution: Force Amazon to respect the Bill of Rights. Like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, Amazon has a monopoly in the digital public square. It is a de facto public utility not a private company. If Jeff Bezos keeps spitting on our Constitution, we must nationalize Amazon—and try Bezos for treason.

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.

Whistleblower Jailed Yet Again

Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who released 730,000 damning documents to WikiLeaks, has been arrested again.

By S.T. Patrick

In a country that relishes every opportunity to tout its First Amendment freedoms to the rest of the world, no American had ever spent more than three years in jail for exposing government secrets to the public. That was before Chelsea Manning spent seven years imprisoned for doing just that—exercising what Manning believes to be First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press in an effort to inform average Americans of what was really happening within their government’s perpetual war state. Today, Manning is behind bars once again for refusing to testify against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange before a grand jury.

In 2009, Manning was assigned as an intelligence analyst to an Army unit in Iraq. A year later, Manning released classified videos and documents to WikiLeaks. In total, more than 251,000 diplomatic cables and 482,000 Army reports (“The Iraq War Logs”) were released. Manning was arrested and prosecuted after threat analyst and hacker Adrian Lamo, a “friend” of Manning’s, reported the releases to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command. Manning was acquitted of “aiding the enemy,” which could have brought a death sentence, but was still sentenced to 35 years in prison at the maximum-security facility at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. In January 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to seven years dating back to the May 2010 arrest.

Kingdom Identity

Manning has remained a controversial figure, both in the media and on college campuses. In September 2017, Manning was named a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. After complaints were levied by former acting director of the CIA Michael Morell and then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Harvard rescinded its offer to Manning.

“I’m not ashamed of being disinvited. I view that just as much of an honored distinction as the fellowship itself,” Manning said. “This is military intelligence, and it is a police state in which we can no longer engage in actual political discourse in our institutions.”

After refusing to testify against Assange in early March, U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton ordered that Manning be imprisoned for contempt of court. There was a brief hearing in which Manning re-emphasized a refusal to testify. Then Manning bravely told the judge, “I will accept whatever you bring upon me.”

Manning has logical objections for refusing to testify before the grand jury. Manning objects to the secretive process of grand juries and has already revealed everything at a court-martial hearing. Second, the grand jury process has often been used to “entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech.” Third, because prosecutors granted Manning immunity for testimony at the court-martial hearing, Manning’s ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination no longer applies, thus eliminating any constitutional protections.

With every case that comes to court hereafter, being called to testify means once again opening Manning to new charges. It’s a twisted, legal way of continually persecuting someone for actions stemming from the same offense.

Manning will be in jail now until the grand jury has finished its investigation.

Lords of Secrecy, Scott Horton
“The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Warfare,” by Scott Horton. Available from AFP.

While the military and media establishment could have controlled the Manning story 40 to 50 years ago (pre-Internet), the rise of the alternative media means that different perspectives of each story can be aired unedited. No longer can someone be so easily labeled a traitor. Whistleblowers exist in the vacuum where the mainstream media has failed. Whistleblowers like Manning, Assange, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and former FBI agent Coleen Rowley now inform the public more in one courageous action than CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the major networks do in a year.

Writing for Consortium News, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray supported Manning’s decision not to testify.

“I am in awe of Chelsea’s courage in refusing to testify, and shocked at a system that imprisons somebody for contempt of court for maintaining dignified silence,” Murray wrote. “Chelsea has also done a great service in finally stripping away the last vestige of excuse from the figures who refuse to support Julian Assange, pretending that they do not believe he faces extradition to the United States, and that the legal issue is not about WikiLeaks’s right to publish.”

Prosecutors have said that the Assange grand jury has no link to the investigation of Robert Mueller, though both would have a shared interest in seeing Assange prosecuted.

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 [email protected] He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication carried by the AFP Online Store.

Russiagate — a Bright, Shining Lie

“For democracy dies in darkness, and this can’t happen again.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia … to influence the 2016 US presidential campaign.”

So stated Attorney General William Barr in his Sunday letter to Congress summarizing the principal findings of the Mueller report.

On the charge of collusion with Russia, not guilty on all counts.

After two years of hearing from haters in politics and the media that President Donald Trump was “Putin’s poodle,” an agent of the Kremlin, guilty of treason, an illegitimate president who would leave the White House in handcuffs and end his days in prison, we learn the truth.

It was all a bright, shining lie.

Reeling from Trump’s exoneration, big media are now scurrying to their fallback position: Mueller did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

But Mueller was not obstructed. No one impeded his labors.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

As for Trump’s rages against his investigation, they were the natural reaction of an innocent man falsely accused and facing disgrace and ruin for a crime he did not commit, indeed, a crime that had never been committed.

The House Judiciary Committee may try to replicate what Mueller did, and re-investigate obstruction. Fine. This would confirm what this whole rotten business has at root always been about: a scheme by the deep state and allied media to bring down another president.

The Mueller investigation employed 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents. It took two years. It issued 2,800 subpoenas. It executed 500 search warrants. It interviewed 500 witnesses. And it failed to indict a single member of Trump’s campaign for collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Which raises this question:

If Mueller could find no collusion, after an exhaustive two-year search, what was the compelling evidence that caused James Comey’s FBI and Barack Obama’s Department of Justice to believe that such collusion had occurred and to launch this investigation?

Sunday, after Barr’s summary of the Mueller report became public, Trump aired his justified anger: “It’s a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest, it’s a shame that your president has had to go through this. … This was an illegal takedown that failed.”

Is there not truth in this?

Millions of Americans still believe what is now a manifest falsehood — that their president collaborated with Putin in cheating Hillary Clinton out of the presidency. The legal bills of Trump, his family, his campaign aides and his White House staff must be huge. Careers, reputations have been damaged.

The nation has been distracted and bitterly divided over this since Trump’s first days in office. He has had a cloud over his presidency since he gave his inaugural address. Any ability the president had to fulfill his campaign pledge and negotiate with the largest country on earth, Russia, a superpower rival, has had to be put off.

Is it unfair to ask: Who did this to us?

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Who led the Justice Department into believing Trump conspired with the Russians? Why did it take two years to discover there was no collusion? Who gave Putin and the GRU this victory by helping to tear our own country apart?

Our establishment is forever demanding apologies. Where are the apologies for the outrageous accusations that Trump was guilty of something next to treason?

Sen. Joe McCarthy did not do a fraction of the damage to the reputations of Dean Acheson or George Marshall that the elite media have done, unjustly and maliciously, to the reputation of Donald Trump.

Years after French Artillery Capt. Alfred Dreyfus was convicted of colluding with the Germans in the late 19th century, and was sent to Devil’s Island, evidence against another officer emerged.

Soon, it was Dreyfus’ accusers who were in the dock of public opinion.

That needs to happen now. The instigators of this investigation, launched to bring down a president, have damaged and divided this nation, and they need to be exposed, as do their collaborators in the press.

The roots of Mueller’s investigation go back to the Clinton campaign’s hiring of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS hired ex-British spy Christopher Steele. He had sources in Russian intelligence who provided him with the contents of his infamous dossier. This was delivered to a grateful cabal at the FBI, which used it as the basis of a FISA court warrant to surveil the Trump campaign.

The dirt in the Steele dossier, much of it false, would be secretly shared with Trump-haters in the media to torpedo his candidacy; then, when Trump won, to destroy his presidency before it began.

Now that Trump has been exonerated, the story of how his accusers, using the power of the state, almost murdered a presidency with lies, propaganda and innuendo, needs to be brought out into the sunlight.

For democracy dies in darkness, and this can’t happen again.

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, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


House Passes ‘Intolerance’ Resolution

Recent comments by Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar spurred Congress to violate the spirit of the First Amendment.

By John Friend

On March 7, just after AFP went to press, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning “anti-Semitism,” anti-Muslim discrimination, and bigotry against minorities “as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.”

The resolution, the second such resolution approved by the House in the past two months that explicitly denounces “anti-Semitism,” came in response to comments made by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali-born freshman congresswoman who has been critical of the pro-Israel lobby and the potential dual loyalty members of Congress hold in relation to Israel. Omar’s statements have been widely condemned by government officials, congressional representatives, media pundits, and political commentators across the political spectrum as “anti-Semitic” in nature, despite the entirely legitimate points she has raised.

It is important to note that Omar never once mentioned “Jew” or “Jewish” in either of her purportedly controversial statements.

Omar first ran afoul of the pro-Israel lobby and its supporters in Washington when she said support for Israel and its powerful lobby was “all about the Benjamins” [i.e., Benjamin Franklin as he is pictured on a $100 bill] meaning the huge donations legislators receive from the pro-Israel community.

National Coin Investments

On March 3, Omar again ran into trouble when she took to Twitter in response to comments made by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) that Omar had “mischaracterized support for Israel.” Omar tweeted: “I should not be expected to have allegiance/ pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”

The recently passed resolution expressly condemns the so-called “anti-Semitic trope” regarding “dual loyalties,” arguing that such accusations “generally have an insidious and pernicious history.

“Whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse,” the resolution declares.

It goes on to explicitly denounce white supremacists, citing the Unite the Right rally as an alleged violent manifestation of white supremacy, the mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. in June 2015 carried out by a young man with white nationalist views, and the more recent mass shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh carried out by a radicalized man who reportedly stated he “wanted all Jews to die.” The resolution describes “anti-Semitism” as a “centuries-old bigotry and form of racism faced by Jews simply because they are Jews,” and states that “it is a foreign policy priority of the United States to monitor and combat anti-Semitism abroad.”

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump appointed Elan Carr, a Jewish former prosecutor based in Los Angeles, to serve as the special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, an official position in the State Department which “was created by law and designed to protect the Jewish people throughout the world,” according to Carr. The position had been left unfilled by the Trump administration for the previous two years.

The House resolution passed by a vote of 407 to 23, with Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) simply voting present. The 23 “No” votes came exclusively from Republicans, including notable figures such as Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Mo Brooks (R-N.Y.), Mike Conway (R-Texas), and Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), among others.

Ten Myths About Israel, Ilan Pappe
Outspoken Israeli historian Ilan Pappe examines the most contested ideas concerning the origins and identity of the contemporary state of Israel. New at the AFP Store.

The resolution was initially designed to exclusively denounce “anti-Semitism” and to call Omar out by name as trafficking in “anti-Semitic tropes” that are “contrary to American values.” After pushback from a number of progressive Democratic allies of Omar, the resolution evolved into a broader denunciation of multiple forms of bigotry and discrimination, including “anti-Semitism,” Islamophobia, and other forms of discrimination against minorities, prompting the “No” votes from Republicans.

The pro-Israel community also expressed mixed emotions to the resolution, with some organizations and leaders praising the bill and others more critical. The Anti-Defamation League praised the resolution. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt—whose organization pressured House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to take action—announced his organization was pleased that the House “took a firm stance against anti-Semitism, including making an explicit statement rejecting the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and other vile slurs that have been used to persecute Jews for centuries,” according to a press release issued by the organization. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, on the other hand, was critical of the resolution.

“While we commend Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to bring to the floor the issue of anti-Semitism within its ranks, the politically expedient resolution failed to call out Representative Omar by name and failed to take into account the historically unique dimensions of the anti-Semitic themes trafficked by Rep. Omar,” the organization said in a statement.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Morris Dees Sacked

SPLC sleazeball co-founder sent packing !

By Mark Anderson

Morris Dees, the disreputable hate-peddler who has for many years posed as the arch-enemy of hate, was fired from his position as head of the infamous Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Ala. The SPLC is reviled among thinking Americans as an anti-free speech, anti-Christian, anti-conservative pressure group that has accused everyone from President Donald Trump to this newspaper—and many publications, organizations, and individuals in between—of being aligned with dangerous extremism.

The firing of Dees, now 82—who co-founded the SPLC in 1971—was effective March 13. SPLC President Richard Cohen was tight-lipped about the specifics, but he did say it had to do with “misconduct” of an unspecified nature.

“As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world,” Cohen said in a statement.

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

In the Montgomery Advertiser, Dees was quoted as saying: “I refuse to say anything negative about the center or its employees. I’ll let my life’s work and reputation speak for itself.”

His life’s work speaks for itself, indeed. In 1994, Dees was accused of mistreating the organization’s minority employees who said they “felt threatened and banded together,” as local media reported at the time, even while the SPLC has preached nonstop that the slightest alleged misstep against minorities is on par with a KKK lynching.

Worst of all, Dees molded the SPLC into a rogue agency, which, armed with its “Hatewatch” list and map of alleged “hate groups,” has routinely blacklisted scores of individuals and organizations while acting as a dominant source of information for media, law enforcement, and many large corporations.

That appears to be the SPLC’s core function: Erode and destroy the constitutional rights and reputations of most conservatives and constitutionalists, and criminalize “right-wing” free speech and assembly, all behind the smokescreen of being a civil rights litigation and education center. Although this is the very antithesis of fairness and objectivity, most media have continued to trust the SPLC’s analyses.

At least one newsman sees the truth. Jim Tharpe—the Advertiser’s managing editor in 1994 when the story broke on the SPLC mistreating minority staffers—said of Dees’s firing: “I would hope the IRS and the Justice Department would take this as [an] opportunity to come in and take a close look at the [center’s] finances … . It’s long overdue.”

In response to the SPLC’s announcement that it had settled a defamation lawsuit brought by Quilliam International—a group that works to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism—for nearly $3.4 million, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins responded by saying that the SPLC’s “falsehoods and dangerous tactics have finally caught up with them… . Even after this massive pay-out, the SPLC continues to sit on hundreds of millions of dollars (much of it offshore) that they use to advance their liberal policy agenda… . This public acknowledgment of their defamatory actions leaves the media and big business with no excuse in continuing to use the SPLC as an objective, independent source.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor for AFP. Email him at [email protected].

Do We Know What Spawned the Christchurch Massacre?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On March 15, in Christchurch, New Zealand, one of the more civilized places on Earth, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant, an Australian, turned on his cellphone camera and set out to livestream his massacre of as many innocent Muslim worshipers as he could kill.

Using a semi-automatic rifle, he murdered more than 40 men, women, and children at one mosque, drove three miles to another, and there killed more, 50 in all. Dozens are still wounded, suffering, and dying.  An atrocity and act of pure evil by a man with a dead soul. Yet, predictably, within 48 hours, the president of the United States was being publicly indicted as a moral accomplice.

Donald Trump, it was said, used a word, “invasion,” to describe the 76,000 migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S. border in February. At the same time, the killer used that word to describe the Muslim migration into the West. The killer also mentioned Trump in his 74-page manifesto.

What further need have we of proof? Trump also failed to express America’s revulsion and his country’s condolences to Muslims everywhere, and failed to denounce the “white nationalist” ideology that motivated the killer.

From there, it was a short jump to declare that we Americans have too long ignored this growing menace. Charlottesville, where a woman protester was run over by a neo-Nazi, was trotted out again and again.

Kingdom Identity

But does the vision of America as a country where white racism is rampant and an unleashed white nationalism is a scourge that is running amok correspond with reality?

America’s elites are familiar with the Acela Express, the train that runs from D.C.’s Union Station to Penn Station in New York.

In which of the five Eastern Seaboard cities at which the Acela stops to take on and discharge passengers—Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York—are white nationalists responsible for a significant share of the assaults, robberies, rapes, and shootings?

Chicago may lead the nation in total gun deaths. But the murder rate was highest in 2018 in St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and Kansas City. In how many of these cities are Klansmen and neo-Nazis regularly hauled in for violent crimes?

As for the mass murders of our new century, the racist right has perpetrated its share. Dylann Roof’s killing of the black women and men at the Charleston church qualifies, as does the massacre of Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Yet a Muslim major, Nidal Hasan, fatally shot 13 soldiers at Fort Hood. In the 2015 San Bernardino massacre, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out that attack that left 14 dead and 22 wounded.

According to Forbes, of the 18,814 deaths caused by terrorists around the world in 2017, well over half were due to the actions of four groups: Islamic State, the Taliban, Al-Shabab, and Boko Haram. All are Sunni Muslim; none are alt-right.

Undeniably, atrocities that exceed in bloodshed the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre by Al Capone’s gang, where seven men were stood against a wall in a Chicago garage and executed, have become all too common. But the atrocities seized upon by the left as most representative are those that conform to vision, a narrative, a pre-existing script. This preconceived idea is that America is a hotbed of white nationalism where the worst crimes are committed by white racists. And this is a myth.

Now, there are no excuses, or defenses, for what happened in Christchurch. But there is an explanation. All peoples to some degree resent and resist the movement of outsiders into their space. Some migrants are more difficult than others to assimilate into Western societies. European nations that had not known mass migrations for centuries were especially susceptible to a virulent reaction, a backlash. Americans, after all, reacted viscerally to the Irish migration of 1845-1849, and, again, to the Great Migration from Central and Eastern Europe from 1890 to 1920. Inter-ethnic violence was not uncommon.

Our leaders in the 1920s understood this and took steps to halt the migrations until those who had come could be assimilated, and, in a word, Americanized. It worked. By 1960, we were a united people. Then, without the people’s consent, the great experiment began:

America’s doors were thrown open to peoples of every religion, race, culture, and creed, to create a different nation that mirrored all mankind in its diversity, in author and commentator Ben Wattenberg’s phrase, a universal nation.  The problem: A universal nation is a contradiction in terms. A nation of all races, religions, and tribes had never before existed.

The liberal democracies that embraced this ideology, this idea, are at war with human nature, and are losing this war to tribalism and authoritarianism.

As for Christchurch, unfortunately, such horrors appear to have become the new normal. But Brenton Tarrant alone is responsible for what he did. And it was not Trump but the New World Order globalists who fertilized the soil that spawned him.

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, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


Citizens Call for ‘Sanctuary City’ for Unborn

Amidst appalling new abortion laws passed in New York State, locals are pushing back.

By Mark Anderson

A bookstore owner in upstate New York is pushing back with all his might against the state’s tyrannical and immensely de-humanizing late term abortion law—passed under the innocuous name “The Reproductive Health Act” by the state assembly amid public celebration by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his Democratic confreres.

Among other things, Jon Speed of the Book Scout, a rare-books store he opened in Syracuse in 2014, is joining hands with others to build on the idea of declaring Batavia “a sanctuary city for the unborn” to protest Cuomo’s signing of the act. Getting the city to make such a declaration, however, is no easy task.

Speed, who is also pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church, was one of about 20 people who spoke out at a Feb. 11 City Council meeting, asking its nine members to at least write a letter to Cuomo to convey their official opposition to the new law, short of making the “sanctuary” declaration.

The encouraging part of this bittersweet story is that at least one of the council members had already indicated that it’s way past time for local leaders to stand up for the pre-born, amid reports that several other states have considered laws like New York’s.

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

“I grew up in Batavia. A friend went to an earlier council meeting [held a few days after the Jan. 22 passage of the state law] and council member Rose Marie Christian called for Batavia to become a sanctuary city. My friend filled me in and encouraged me to go back to my hometown and build on this,” Speed told this writer.

Speed took the extra measure of closing his bookstore the day after the law’s passage to deny the state its sales-tax revenues for that one day, while knowing, realistically, that he can’t carry out that action too often. But what counts, he said, is the tax-revolt symbolism. He continues to close the store from time to time for that same reason. “The theme of the emails that poured in, in response, has been hope,” he noted.

One of the horrific hallmarks of the abortion culture, beyond the increasingly callous disregard for the lives of the most defenseless and innocent human beings, is the moral surrender into which many people are induced, creating a frigid sense of hopelessness and a futile sense of cowardice in sizable cross-sections of the population.

On that note, the debilitating downside to this story is that when the Feb. 25 council meeting came around—bringing with it expectations by Speed and other pro-life activists that at least the letter to Cuomo may very well be approved—the letter-writing idea suddenly hit the shoals when every council member except Ms. Christian voted against it.

“They voted against it even though most of them are pro-life, which was really ridiculous. I mean, all it is, is a letter,” Speed remarked, exasperated about the lack of conviction among the city’s leadership.

Marcus Pittman, an Arizona native who directed “Babies Are Murdered Here,” a documentary movie for which Speed is a co-producer, had a different take that he passionately shared with the council with about 100 people in attendance.

“Marcus got up and spoke and … he really brought the ‘fire’ to the meeting. He just said, ‘I am actually against the letter; you should just make this place a sanctuary city for the unborn and be done with it, because we all know it’s murder,’ ” Speed recalled.

As of this writing, the sanctuary city idea remains in limbo. Meanwhile, Speed and likeminded citizens are continuing to raise public awareness by circulating petitions and conducting regular protests at an area clinic of Planned Parenthood—the nation’s largest tax-funded abortion provider.

Speed is especially disturbed that under the Reproductive Care Act, even the criminal code was altered to the point where, in a recent case, a man who stabbed a pregnant woman and killed her baby in the process was charged for harming the woman but “didn’t even get charged with murder under the new law,” due to the law’s dehumanization of pre-born babies.

“To think it’s become this wicked—this malice of forethought, this determination to kill the baby,” Speed remarked, adding, “Due to the nature of sinful man, there’s an obsession with narcissism—we must have whatever we want, at all costs.”

Beyond trying to get local governments to challenge state and federal tyranny against life itself, Speed is working on a sequel to the above-mentioned documentary movie, to be named, “Babies Are Still Murdered Here.” The original can be found on YouTube, where a 90-second trailer for the sequel also is posted.


Pro-Life ‘Heartbeat Bills’ Have a Chance to Pass in Several States

If no heartbeat means death, then a beating heart must mean life.

By Mark Anderson

In direct response to moves by certain states to allow late term abortion procedures beyond 24 weeks—well into the third trimester, when most babies could survive outside the womb if aided by modern technology—Missouri is seeking to go in the opposite direction.

On Feb. 27, Republican legislators in the Show Me State approved legislation in the state House for what could become the most restrictive abortion law in the country.

Missouri House Speaker Elijah Haahr and other legislators carefully examined what other states have proposed to limit abortion and decided to bundle all those measures into one piece of legislation—having focused on abortion laws that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had struck down because they were not sufficiently explicit about the state’s interest in protecting life.

“We watched what happened to New York and Virginia, and it was somewhat of a call to action,” Rep. Haahr told The Washington Times. “The goal of this underlying bill is to protect the unborn in this state… . We show [in House Bill 126] a significant amount of legislative findings, which multiple attorneys have told us is where other state abortion laws are falling short.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Thus, despite frequent media reports that suggest ultra-liberal abortion laws are the dominant trend, Missouri joins a growing roster of Republican-led legislatures seeking stricter laws that may spark a challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down state laws that prohibited abortion.

Meanwhile, in Iowa—which was something of a pacesetter last year with the passage of its “fetal heartbeat” law—Judge Michael Huppert in January 2019 struck down the measure, which, the Associated Press noted, “would have been the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation.”

The AP reported that Huppert found Iowa’s law to be “unconstitutional” on the basis that “prohibiting abortions at the detection of a fetal heartbeat,” as the Iowa law intended, somehow “violates both the due-process and equal-protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution as not being narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of promoting potential life.”

The media and judiciary both failed to explain how a living human being with a heartbeat is only “potential” life. In addition, the actual concept of “equal protection” of both mother and child is not even considered, nor is there any mention of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, “No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Nevertheless, Huppert’s reference to the Iowa law lacking a “compelling state interest” is exactly what Missouri is looking at to make its actions more “bulletproof.”

“I am incredibly disappointed in [Huppert’s] court ruling, because I believe that if death is determined when a heart stops beating, then a beating heart indicates life,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said in a statement, having signed the bill into law in May 2018. A July 2018 legal challenge by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and the Emma Goldman Clinic had halted the law from taking effect.

As of this writing, Rhode Island and New Mexico appear intent on following New York’s lead in allowing late term abortions, while Virginia’s House of Delegates, which had been on the path toward allowing abortion at any stage, voted down such radical liberalization.

Delaware Gov. John Carney foreshadowed New York’s infamy and signed a bill in mid-2017 making abortion legal throughout all stages of pregnancy.

A major factor behind radical abortion laws is the common fear shared by pro-abortion officials and media in New York, Virginia, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and elsewhere that the Supreme Court might someday overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, especially in light of President Donald Trump’s appointments of conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court and concerns that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may step down due to health issues—creating yet another vacancy for Trump to fill.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at [email protected].

CPAC Banishes America-Firsters, Welcomes Liberals With Open Arms

Multiple conservatives were booted out of this year’s GOP-backed Conservative Political Action Conference, while left-leaning journalists were given press credentials and one well-known radical leftist was even invited to speak.

By John Friend

The 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference, commonly known as CPAC, wrapped up on Saturday, March 2, with a reported record crowd of attendees and a fiery concluding speech by President Donald Trump in which he ripped Democrats and their socialist agenda while defending American values and his administration. The four-day conference, which brought together conservative activists from across the country, was held once again at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Md., just south of the nation’s capital on the Potomac River.

The president spoke for over two hours and touched on a variety of topics central to his 2016 presidential campaign, including the threat of illegal immigration, America’s disastrous trade deals, the reviving U.S. economy, and related subjects. Trump, like virtually all speakers and panels at this year’s conference, denounced the socialist agenda of the Democratic Party, focusing particular attention on the proposed Green New Deal advanced by radical far left congressional representatives including the firebrand freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.). The Democrats were also characterized as promoting “a culture of death” for their support for controversial abortion practices, including partial-birth and late term abortions.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Trump’s freewheeling speech and the crowd’s response was reminiscent of the spirited, high-energy rallies then-candidate Trump held around the country during the 2016 campaign season. The president expressed confidence in his political future and that of the Republican Party heading into the 2020 election season.

“Our movement and our future in our country is unlimited,” President Trump stated. “I think we’re going to do even better in 2020.”

Perhaps one of the biggest stories to come out of the conference was the fact that a number of America-first nationalists and independent journalists were either excluded or expelled from the conference. Nick Fuentes, a young, independent pundit who hosts a popular YouTube program called “America First,” was kicked out of the conference, as were the independent journalists and political activists Patrick Casey, Faith Goldy, and Laura Loomer.

Meanwhile, several left-leaning journalists, including Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch, who regularly maliciously targets American populists and nationalists, were given press credentials and allowed to attend and cover the event. Van Jones, a radical left-wing commentator and pundit, even spoke at the conference, while some of the most popular conservative voices in America, such as Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, were not even invited.

Ship of Fools, Carlson
Brand new and available now from AFP, Tucker Carlson’s “Ship of Fools”

Fuentes, Casey, and Goldy organized and held their own press conference after it was made clear to them they were not welcomed at CPAC.

“This year, CPAC decided to ban American nationalists, while welcoming anti-American leftists,” Casey stated on Twitter when announcing the press conference, which took place the evening of March 3 at a private suite at the Gaylord.

Fuentes was especially targeted, not only by CPAC but also by many journalists and activists at the conference, who were determined to expel him from their venue.

“There has been a lot of slander and name-calling going on this week by so-called ‘conservatives’ trying to justify keeping me out of their little corporate club,” Fuentes tweeted recently. “I’ve been called a lot of things, but I’ve never been called un-American, and that’s all that matters.”

The fault lines in the conservative movement are becoming increasingly well-defined. A clear divide exists between the more populist, rightwing conservative movement, which denounces political correctness and is unafraid to openly address some of the most controversial and taboo subjects, and establishment conservatives represented at CPAC. Both factions are vying for the hearts and minds of conservative voters and activists in an attempt to bring the movement more into line with their worldview.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Liberal Congresswoman Attacked by Leftist Media, Rabid Warmongers

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) made waves last week on morning television when she refused to label Syria’s al-Assad an enemy but instead told the truth: Many of our troops don’t understand “what the clear mission or objective is, and how that mission actually serves the security of the American people and the United States.”

By S.T. Patrick

Forget what you have been conditioned to do in the game of politics. Forget that one label should be cheered, and the opposing label should be jeered. Remember, however, that many of the same lobbyists and billionaire-capitalists support candidates from both parties, thus assuring a profitable win either way. Remember also that politicians from both sides of the political aisle have all overwhelmingly supported the permanent war state. Forget the labels, remember the ideals, and consider the current case of Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).

Gabbard stirred up some intra-party commotion when she recently appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski, once a leading globalist and Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor. NBC News correspondent Kasie Hunt asked Gabbard if Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was an enemy to the United States.

Gabbard replied, “Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States.”

Hunt, appalled at Gabbard’s refusal to label Assad as an enemy, made an unsolicited appeal to Gabbard on behalf of every Democratic voter in the United States. “What do you say to Democratic voters who watched you go over there, and what do you say to military members who have been deployed repeatedly in Syria pushing back against Assad?” asked Hunt.

It must have been baffling to Gabbard that an NBC journalist lacked the basic facts about the events taking place in Syria. American troops are not there to “push back against Assad.”

Journalist Max Blumenthal agreed. He tweeted, “This is such an embarrassing look at the state of corporate American regime media. [Kasie Hunt] doesn’t know the most basic facts about Syria and, along with her co-hosts, doesn’t care to learn.”

Gabbard’s response to Hunt’s assumption that the Hawaiian congresswoman was disappointing all Democratic voters is the reason why Gabbard deserves a fair look.

Gabbard responded: “People who have been deployed to Syria have been there focused on their mission, which has been to defeat ISIS. Our troops have not gone to Syria to wage yet another costly, destructive, regime change war. And many troops I hear from express frustration at the fact that our country continues to wage senseless, costly, regime change wars followed by nation-building missions, leading to situations like we see in Afghanistan. So many examples of our troops being deployed, their lives put on the line, without understanding what the clear mission or objective is, and how that mission actually serves the security of the American people and the United States.”

Scarborough, a former Republican U.S. representative from Florida, jumped in toward the end of Gabbard’s lucid response to demand that she label Assad. If he is not an enemy, what is he? Is he an adversary but not an enemy? Is he like Vladimir Putin? The mainstream media establishment believes in labels. Once the jerseys are donned, American viewers can be dog-whistled to cheer in support or bellow in painful disgust at said labels. Gabbard knows that she doesn’t have to answer a question because it’s asked, and she doesn’t have to respond on command, as if it’s a game show. When Gabbard refused to label Assad, Brzezinski jumped in to ask the same question more pointedly.

“What is Assad to the U.S.? What is the word?” Brzezinski asked, demanding a specific word.

“You can describe it however you want to describe it,” Gabbard told Brzezinski.

America's "War on Terrorism" Chossudovsky
America’s “War on Terrorism” in the Wake of 9/11, from Michel Chossudovsky, at AFP’s Online store.

Gabbard is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. She knows foreign policy professionally and personally. She is also a major in the Hawaiian Army National Guard, and she has spent a year in Iraq in a field medical unit as a specialist in a combat zone. She enlisted while she was a state representative in Hawaii, a position she’d been elected to at the age of 21, the youngest state representative in Hawaii’s history. She was also deployed to Kuwait in 2008 and 2009.

As one of the young Democratic women in the House (Gabbard was born in the Reagan years), she has also challenged the decisions of the party leadership. As a vice chair for the Democratic National Committee in 2016, she clashed with Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s decision to limit the number of debates within the Democratic primaries. This would, by default, aid the establishment Dems like Clinton and force the younger Democrats and lesser-known senators like Bernie Sanders to raise more money to survive the campaign. In 2008, the Democrats held 26 debates; six were held in 2016. Gabbard resigned her position as vice chair so that she could actively campaign for Sanders, noting that in her position with the DNC she had “checked (her free speech) at the door.”

Gabbard is absolutely a domestic Democrat and supports the same policies as many of the other new, young Democrats. But domestic squabbles are democracy and should happen in a republic. In most cases, domestic policies do not cost Americans thousands of lives. She is an outlier and a breath of fresh air in the realm of foreign policy. She is someone speaking against the permanent war state, and Americans of all political ideologies should listen.

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 [email protected] 

Did Neocons Sabotage North Korea Deal?

Warhawks, Democrats can’t tolerate president succeeding in peace efforts with “boogeyman”

By Dr. Ron Paul

President Donald Trump’s second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in late February was criticized by both parties in Washington long before Air Force One even touched down in Hanoi. Washington’s political class seemed terrified that the nearly 70-year state of “war” with North Korea might actually end. In the end the only positive thing they could say about the meeting was that Trump apparently walked away with nothing to show for it.

The location of the meeting—Hanoi, Vietnam— serves as a great example of what can be won in peace versus what is lost in war. After losing nearly 60,000 U.S. service members in an unnecessary war that took a million Vietnamese lives, the U.S. loss of the Vietnam War resulted not in a communist takeover of Southeast Asia but something very different: The domino theory failed because communism was destined to fail. Now we are close trading partners with an increasingly pro-market Vietnam. The result of trade and exchange versus war is a better life for all.

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

Unfortunately for Washington, the real lesson of Vietnam has not been learned. That is why the Republicans, Democrats, and the entire mainstream media spoke as one against Trump’s decision to take a bold step and actually meet again, one-on-one, with one of our “enemies” to see if we can avoid nuclear conflict.

One leading Democrat, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif), attacked Trump for meeting with Kim because speaking to the North Korean “gives him legitimacy.”

Does it make any sense that we should not even speak with our nuclear-armed adversaries because it gives them “legitimacy”? He’d rather have a nuclear war as long as Kim remains “illegitimate”? This is sadly the kind of thinking that prevails in Washington.

The media reported that Trump walked away from the meeting before the scheduled signing ceremony and closing press event. The talks broke down, it was reported, because Kim demanded an end to all sanctions before any reduction in North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Washington sighed with relief and said, all together, “Better no deal than a bad deal.”

Meanwhile the North Koreans held a rare press conference clarifying that they only asked for partial sanctions relief in exchange for dismantling one of their main nuclear facilities. Further, press reports began to surface that National Security Advisor John Bolton threw additional demands on the table, which led Kim to draw the meeting to an early close.

Who’s telling the truth? We likely won’t know. But given Bolton’s strong opposition to any kind of peace agreement with North Korea it’s hard to doubt that he had something to do with the blowup of the summit. As The New York Times reported over the weekend, while Trump’s advisors were shocked when he decided to meet Kim face-to-face the first time for negotiations, Bolton wasn’t worried at all. As the Times writes, “Mr. Bolton told colleagues not to worry. The negotiations, he said, would collapse on their own.” And so they did.

Will Trump continue to allow his diplomatic efforts to be undermined by his own staff? Let’s hope the president will ignore Washington, ignore the neocons, and continue to work for peace with North Korea.

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

Summit Sticking Point

Did North Korea seek same secret nuclear status as Israel?

By Richard Walker

In the wake of the collapse of President Donald Trump’s Vietnam summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, there were many unanswered questions, with both sides unwilling to claim victory.

There was, however, a secret issue discussed at the summit that Washington and Pyongyang prefer to remain secret for now, perhaps hoping to revisit it in the future. It was the possibility of North Korea being accorded the same nuclear status as Israel.

All this means that, from a public perspective, the event may go down in history as either a failed opportunity, the inevitable consequence of trying to negotiate with a rogue regime, or too much hype and serious miscalculations by Washington and Pyongyang.

Trump and “Chairman Kim,” as Trump calls the North Korean leader, both abandoned an expensive dinner and a conference scheduled for after the summit during which they had planned to stand together and announce to the world that they had solved the North Korean nuclear issue. Instead, Trump flew back to Washington on Air Force One, and Kim returned to Pyongyang on a lengthy train journey through China.

The South Koreans were left to wonder what had just happened. Essentially, they had been frozen out of the well-choreographed get-together of the two leaders, implying that they were minor players in a drama that directly affected them. It did not occur to the mass media to ask why South Korea was clearly sidelined. Could they have played a crucial role in the failed negotiations? We shall never know.

So what are we to make of what appeared to be this failure on a grand scale? President Trump has said he walked away because he could not get the right deal. One might be tempted to wonder why he had not anticipated failure before promising success with public outpouring of optimism before and during the summit. The White House later claimed that Kim had wanted all sanctions lifted, while refusing to commit to unfettered access to all his secret nuclear sites. Kim responded that Washington’s version of the breakdown of the talks was a lie and that he had not demanded the lifting of all sanctions.

The reality may be simpler than we think. It is entirely possible that Trump’s advisers, especially Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and political advisor Jared Kushner never briefed Trump fully about North Korea. They may not have pointed out that Kim, like his late father and grandfather, is a skilled tactician surrounded by generals with a long history of engagement with the West. Why, for example, would Kim give up his nuclear arsenal in exchange for the lifting of sanctions? He would have known what happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadaffi when they abandoned their nuclear ambitions.

Kingdom Identity

Missing in mass media coverage was something a diplomat close to Moscow told AFP on condition of anonymity.

“The real secret of the talks was that Kim was prepared to offer access to all his nuclear sites and to end all nuclear activity, but he expected in return to keep his nukes and have North Korea recognized like Israel as a nuclear power. The U.S. would then have to remove its military components from South Korea, including nuclear weapons that Moscow and Beijing told Kim were stored in or near South Korea.”

According to this source, the issue that collapsed the summit was the demand for nuclear recognition, but this was something neither side wanted to explore publicly because it is something they hope to renegotiate in the months ahead.

“There was always an insurmountable hurdle when politicians resorted to terminology that means different things to different people,” the diplomat added. “For example, Americans see denuclearization as North Korea giving up all its nukes. North Koreans see it as the removal of America as a nuclear power from the Korean Peninsula.”

The source added that Moscow and Beijing continue to believe a deal is possible on recognizing North Korea as a nuclear power. The source suggested that Moscow had pushed this option privately with the Trump camp, knowing China approved it. China and Russia had secretly agreed that they could live with a nuclear North Korea that was properly monitored, provided the U.S. removed much of its hardware, especially nuclear weapons, from the region.

Where does it go from here? If Kim’s goal is to have his country accepted as a legitimate nuclear power like Israel, he might also feel it is achievable long term.

Trump could redefine denuclearization to mean that North Korea becomes a nuclear power monitored fully by Washington but ceases all nuclear weapons production, removes all its frontline military hardware pointed at South Korea, and does not object to an American military presence in the region.

Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former New York mainstream news producer who grew tired of seeing his articles censored by his bosses.


Thought Censors Growing Bolder

Today’s liberal authoritarian thought police are weaponizing the financial industry.

By Donald Jeffries

In September 2018, PayPal summarily cancelled the account of alternative media figure Alex Jones. The abrupt move had followed several other high-profile cancellations by the online financial giant over the course of that year. Now, however, PayPal’s actions appear to be the opening salvo in weaponizing the financial industry against conservatives as conventional banks are moving to follow suit.

Earlier this month, Chase, one of the giants of the banking world, informed Martina Markota of right-wing alternative news site Rebel Media that it was terminating service for her business. No explanation was provided.

Former Infowars reporter Joe Biggs recently revealed that Chase had closed his account, too, although they later reinstated it after a storm of criticism on social media.

Earlier in February, Chase shut down services for the online store run by Enrique Tarrio, a black conservative of Cuban heritage, who heads the Proud Boys organization. A short time later, Chase notified Tarrio that his personal account was being closed as well. Tarrio has faced the full brunt of “liberal” censorship, having been banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and PayPal, among other lesser-known social media outlets.

Kingdom Identity

In August 2018, both Mastercard and Discover blacklisted right-wing critic of Islam Robert Spencer, while Mastercard and Visa cut off service to high-profile conservative David Horowitz.

Popular online funding platform Patreon created a firestorm of criticism late last year, when it eliminated services to left-of-center Carl Benjamin, more commonly known as Sargon of Akkad.

Plenty of well-known figures such as far-left podcaster Sam Harris, libertarian talk-show host Dave Rubin, and psychologist Jordan Peterson quit Patreon in protest.

All these companies have been under intense pressure from the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center and Color of Change to cease doing business with open supporters of Donald Trump. Color of Change, in fact, proudly boasts of having removed some 158 funding sources from so-called “white supremacist sites.”

The left-leaning Electronic Frontier Foundation was one of the few honest liberal voices to express alarm about this overt suppression, warning that banks and other payment processors were becoming “de facto Internet censors.” Laughably, Chase Bank told Breitbart News that it would “never close an account for political reasons.”

On top of YouTube’s new crusade to deny the public the opportunity to view “conspiracy videos,” Project Veritas recently published damning disclosures from a former Facebook insider. Courageous Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe relies heavily on such insiders, and has noted, “Our future depends on those who are willing to give up everything for what they believe.”

The anonymous insider was fired from Facebook in 2018 and subsequently joined Project Veritas. In an exclusive interview, the insider told Project Veritas, “I saw things that were going on that I personally found to be troubling.” The insider claimed that Facebook instituted a routine suppression of conservative pages, which was done under the code name “Action Deboost Live Distribution.”

Jacobson on William Cooper, at the AFP Online Store.

The insider, identified only as a female, went on to say, “I would see [this term] appear on several different conservative pages. I first noticed it with an account that I can’t remember, but I remember once I started looking at it, I also saw it on [conservative activist] Mike Cernovich’s page, saw it on [conservative comedian] Steven Crowder’s page, as well as the [news website] Daily Caller’s page.”

Crowder’s page had been shut down previously in 2016, in a dispute that was eventually settled out of court. Crowder’s attorney Bill Richmond told Project Veritas, “Louder With Crowder is investigating the allegations of concealed stream throttling by Facebook. The accusations are deeply troubling given the previously settled dispute with Facebook uncovered by, which found the show was targeted by Facebook workers with secret audience restrictions on political grounds alongside other prominent conservative voices.”

Cernovich commented, “Facebook, or an individual at Facebook, has the unilateral power to create false allegations against someone he or she doesn’t like.”

The danger in this “deboost” algorithm is that it doesn’t send the user any warning or notification.

The insider stated that she’d never noticed the tag on any left-wing pages of controversial figures like former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Most shockingly, Project Veritas learned that the deboost tag was tied to an artificial intelligence system designed to block suicide and self-harm posts.

Other Facebook documents revealed a campaign to “control trolling,” whose primary author, Seiji Yamamoto, is an advocate of addressing “the perimeter of hate speech.” The insider noted that this referred to “things that aren’t actually hate speech but that might offend somebody—anything that is perceived as hateful but no court would define it as hate speech.”

Yamamoto also wrote about “destructive behaviors . . . red-pilling normies to convert them to their worldview.” There were disturbing references to “bad content” and a proposed “Troll Twilight Zone.” Also mentioned were limiting the bandwidth and causing technical glitches to “troll accounts,” which would be triggered “leading up to important elections.”

Red pilling refers to the process of an individual going from a liberal (blue) to a conservative (red) as they access new information that shatters their liberal assumptions.

The insider had been fired by Facebook just after Project Veritas released undercover video of Twitter employees discussing “shadow banning” and other abuses of privacy.

All this ideologically driven censorship should outrage the civil libertarians that remain in this country.

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by AFP Book Store.

Enviro-Hypocrites Want You to Suffer While They Party

The Left’s darling Green New Deal is backed by lying politicos and gas-guzzling stars.

By Donald Jeffries

The newest mainstream media darling, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), is demonstrating that she can be just as hypocritical as any virtue-signaling Hollywood celebrity. While actors like Leonardo DiCaprio fly in on their private jets to lecture the unwashed masses about leaving too big a carbon footprint, Ocasio-Cortez has now been caught in close proximity to a hamburger, which was being consumed by her chief of staff. This would not normally be cause for concern, but Ocasio-Cortez had only recently caused one of her continuous furors by insinuating that Americans need to eat fewer hamburgers in order to stop climate change.

The young freshman congressional representative had previously complained about the flatulence produced by cows. Ocasio-Cortez reacted to pictures taken of the controversial meal and published online by saying the photographer was “creepy.”

The much-ballyhooed Green New Deal associated with Ocasio-Cortez, who was literally unknown to the world six months ago when she was working as a waitress, is estimated to come with a price tag of at least $7 trillion. It calls for completely stopping the use of fossil fuels and meeting “100% of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” within 10 years. It also has the wildly ambitious goal of replacing or upgrading every single building in the country.

Even union leaders who are normally loyal to Democrats predict that many industries would experience catastrophic job losses under the plan. Classical liberal Naomi Wolf wrote recently that the Green New Deal “is 60% green and 40% giant non-transparent blank checks to unions, ‘vulnerable and frontline communities,’ and geoengineering venture capitalists, as well as huge interventions in healthcare, capitalism, and housing that have not been voted for and that have nothing to do with climate change.”

Wolf took the time to read through the entire proposal, and as a result of the criticism, Ocasio-Cortez quickly disavowed that original version. Wolf especially noted the funneling of vast sums of money to financial institutions, as well as the implementation of a national smart grid, which has huge implications for those concerned with government surveillance and an increasing lack of privacy. Wolf also decried the large funding for geoengineering, and an option for no public oversight, which should appall the remaining civil libertarians in America. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the Green New Deal calls for vast appropriations to be channeled to the Federal Reserve.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Showing how the continuous publicity from the mainstream media is inflating her ego, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “Yup. If you don’t like the #GreenNewDeal, then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge—and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”

This author has addressed the issue of liberal hypocrisy in previous writings. The implied refrain behind the Green New Deal, and in fact behind the entire “climate change” agenda, is that the average American must “sacrifice” to save the planet. Meanwhile, Barbra Streisand can spend $22,000 annually to water her expansive lawn and gardens, Harrison Ford can own seven airplanes and brag, “I often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger,” and Barack Obama can not only fly to a climate change conference in a private jet but then use a 14-car convoy.

Outspoken liberal director James Cameron, known to call those who doubt climate change “boneheads” that he’d like to “shoot it out with,” doesn’t have a single energy-saving feature in his three humongous homes.

Former Beatle Paul McCartney once had his Lexus hybrid (gifted to him by the company, a routine bit of entitlement from which the 1% benefit) flown from Japan to the United Kingdom.

The National Center for Public Policy Research reported that the guru of “climate change,” former Vice President Al Gore, used over 20 times more energy to power his home from August 2016 to July 2017 than the average American household.

Actor Mark Ruffalo exemplifies the liberal mindset, as he angrily claimed such criticism “defies the spirit” of the environmental movement and maintained, “Anyone who attacks Leonardo DiCaprio is either a coward or an ideologue.”

Co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore, who long ago left the organization saying it had been “hijacked by eco-fascists,” blasted Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter, calling her out as a “pompous little twit.”

Wrote Moore: “You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”

Every reasonable person wants to protect the environment. We all want clean air and water. Diverting taxpayer funds to corporations and our counterfeit central bank, while demanding that average Americans living paycheck to paycheck “sacrifice” some more, isn’t the way to do that.

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.