Every year, members of the grassroots huntingorganization Back Yard Bow Pro(BYBP) donate thousands of pounds ofvenison to local charity groups to help alleviate hunger in twoNorth Carolina counties. It’s a popular program that organizers hope willspread across the nation to help hungry families.
This local non-profit group, founded in Weaverville, N.C., has come up with aformula that helps everybody. Theyhelp the hungry by donating freshmeat to charities. They help landowners by reducing the excess populationof deer that destroy much ofthe locally grown organic produce.They help hunters by giving them not only a larger purpose to the huntbut by integrating their function intothe community.
“It takes a community to combat hunger through hunting,” said Lasher, the founder of BYBP.
Lasher talks of hunting and fishing as a heritageof the people of his area. And given that one out offour children and one out of four seniors are “foodinsecure,” meaning they don’t know where their next meal is coming from, the need is great. But simultaneously,the program helps people to understand the role of the hunter.
“The greatest goal is that we want to help ourfriends, our family and those less fortunate, becausethat is what the hunting heritage is all about,” saysLasher.
“Hunt to help” might be the motto of this organization, which has provided some 200,000 meals tothe needy since 2000 and has grown in two-and-a-half years to more than 24 states. One of the intendedconsequences of this community outreachhas been to create bonds in the community and have different elements of the community—hunters,landowners and hungry families—workingtogether. It helps to recreate what wasonce a staple of American life: community self-sufficiency. It alsostresses the importance of changingthe negative concept that many havetoday of the hunter, not realizing thatit has been hunters, fishermen andfarmers who have traditionally keptcommunities alive.
Marcella Morgan of Big Ivy Community Center in Barnardsville, N.C. speaks glowinglyof the program and how the venison isincluded in packages provided by the Christmas Angel Project and winds up in everything fromspaghetti sauce to hamburger helper.
But that’s not all. The venison provided by BYBP has moved into the gourmet world as well. ChefDerek St. Germain, the regional director of BYBP,coordinates with local organic farms and cooks gourmet meals with what once was derisively called“freezer fodder.” The first attendees were hunters,but over the years non-hunting members of the community have been attending these community mealssponsored by BYBP.
Hunters in the program are certified. They submit to a criminal background check and agree to a codeof ethics. They also agree to hand over a certain proportion of their hunt to charitable organizations.
It’s a win-win situation for all involved. Participantscelebrate their heritage and enjoy the bountyof nature that surrounds us. And many more sitdown to a nourishing, satisfying meal.
Jenifer Dixon is the author of The Holy Land Unveiled, has a B.A. cum laude in English literature and history from George Washington University and has worked for a number of media outlets and at several D.C. think tanks including the Institute for Public Accuracy and Women Strike for Peace.
Elites Move to Ban Guns Following Recent Mass Shootings
Not surprisingly, the push for more draconian gun-control laws has strengthened following the Feb. 14 shooting deaths of 14 students and 3 teachers at a high school in south Florida. Now, a former Supreme Court justice has weighed in calling for a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment, which he says is “a relic of the 18th century.”
By Mark Anderson
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens caused a stir on March 27 when he took to the sympathetic pages of TheNew York Timesin an op-ed calling for repeal of the Second Amendment via constitutional amendment. What’s not as well known is that, about a month before that, a bill had been quietly introduced in Congress to ban all “assault weapons.”
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 (H.R. 5087), which has 174 cosponsors as of this writing, was introduced in the House Feb. 20, just six days after the school shooting in Parkland, Fla. As of March 20, the legislation had been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which referred it to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. The bill would “make it a crime to knowingly import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD).”
The bill does permit “continued possession, sale, or transfer of a grandfathered SAW, which must be securely stored. A licensed gun dealer must conduct a background check prior to the sale or transfer of a grandfathered SAW between private parties. The bill permits continued possession of, but prohibits sale or transfer of, a grandfathered LCAFD.”
The nationally televised March for Our Lives had just happened on March 24 in Washington, D.C.—where scores of emotional teens stumped for drastically increased gun controls—when Stevens’s anti-gun homily was published in the Times.
Referring to the radical idea of repealing the second of the 10 amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights—a concept that has never been seriously contemplated much less carried out—Stevens wrote: “Overturning that decision [in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the individual right to bear arms] via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option. That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States. . . .”
He argues: “Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment. . . . Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”
Of course, Stevens knows that America has a standing army, which has grown beyond what our Founders envisioned due to the U.S. leading the charge in interventionist, undeclared world warfare. Worse still, the U.S. ceaselessly patrolling the world has over the years led to calls for surrendering command of U.S. forces to United Nations commanders—a prospect U.S. Army Medic Michael New resisted in 1995 when refused to wear a UN uniform.
“For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment,” Stevens, 97, opined, “it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well-regulated militia.’ ”
Irrespective of that court decision, the types of weapons needed for personal and community defense, in a Second Amendment context, would logically be based on effectiveness, since it’s absurd to speak of defending town, state, and nation from tyranny with inferior firepower. The widely popular AR-15—the prime target of the Florida students, other gun opponents, and an example of SAWs addressed in H.R. 5087—is arguably the best readily available defense weapon in terms of its utility and power.
Stevens’s Times piece comes adorned with a picture of an 18th century musket alongside an AR-15, and he tries to say that the AR-15’s power so far exceeds the power of the weaponry from the days of the Second Amendment’s framers that the amendment itself is enabling dangers that the framers could not have foreseen. Therefore, Stevens believes, the U.S. should disregard the framers in terms of the principle of homeland defense.
Overlooked is the fact that the musket represented the top firearm technology of its day, just as the AR-15 does now. Naturally, the educated men who framed the national charter understood that weapons technology would advance like any other technology. Conversely, sound principles are by definition unchanging—with the principles of self-defense and national defense being definitive in America’s founding—regardless of the weapons technology at any given time.
The mainstream media, meanwhile, uses loaded terms like “assault weapon” regarding the AR-15, even though any weapon is best defined by the circumstances of its usage. In other words, an AR-15, a .38 revolver, a baseball bat, or a meat cleaver are all “assault weapons” if used unlawfully in an actual assault. But an AR-15 or any other weapon is a defense weapon when lawfully used to “defend the realm” from an assault.
And while all the talk of nixing the Second Amendment and banning so-called assault weapons only pertains to civilian-owned firearms, the government’s abuse of its own firepower is undeniably evident—from police shooting citizens without just cause to the military unlawfully bombing nations with which the U.S. is not at war.
It is worth noting that the Second Amendment is largely bulletproof despite groups like the Conference of the States (CS) seeking to amend the Constitution, according to Cindy Nation, a volunteer for the Conference of the States, an organization based in Houston.
Ms. Nation assured AFP that existing calls for a formal Conference of the States to propose constitutional changes are designed to be strictly limited.
Her group wants to convene such a conference to, among other things, insert term limits for all federal officials into the Constitution, which would require ratification by 38 states under Article V of the Constitution.
However, repealing the Second Amendment appears to be impossible, she said, since none of the CS groups of which she’s aware have any known intentions of touching that amendment.
Besides, “It’s against the rules to add amendment topics later outside the framework of the initial topics with which states apply for a [CS],” she said.
Things Are Getting Worse, Not Better: Round Ups, Checkpoints and National ID Cards
Here in Amerika, things are getting worse—not better—as the nation inches ever closer toward totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none.
No one gets spared the anguish, fear and heartache of living under the shadow of an authoritarian police state.
That’s the message being broadcast 24/7 to the citizens and residents of the American police state with every new piece of government propaganda, every new law that criminalizes otherwise lawful activity, every new policeman on the beat, every new surveillance camera casting a watchful eye, every sensationalist news story that titillates and distracts, every new prison or detention center built to house troublemakers and other undesirables, every new court ruling that gives government agents a green light to strip and steal and rape and ravage the citizenry, every school that opts to indoctrinate rather than educate, and every new justification for why Americans should comply with the government’s attempts to trample the Constitution underfoot.
Here in Amerika, things are getting worse—not better—as the nation inches ever closer toward totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none.
With the government empowered to carry out transportation checks to question people about their immigration status within a 100-mile border zone that wraps around the country, you’re going to see a rise in these “show your papers” incidents.
That’s a problem, and I’ll tell you why.
We are not supposed to be living in a “show me your papers” society.
Despite this, the U.S. government has recently introduced measures allowing police and other law enforcement officials to stop individuals (citizens and noncitizens alike), demand they identify themselves, and subject them to patdowns, warrantless searches, and interrogations.
These actions fly in the face of longstanding constitutional safeguards forbidding such police state tactics.
Set aside the debate over illegal immigration for a moment and think long and hard about what it means when government agents start demanding that people show their papers on penalty of arrest.
The problem with allowing government agents to demand identification from anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant—the current scheme being employed by the Trump administration to ferret out and cleanse the country of illegal immigrants—is that it lays the groundwork for a society in which you are required to identify yourself to any government worker who demands it.
Such tactics quickly lead one down a slippery slope that ends with government agents empowered to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to increasingly intrusive demands that they prove not only that they are legally in the country, but also that they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books.
This flies in the face of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares that all persons have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. At a minimum, the Fourth Amendment protects the American people from undue government interference with their movement and from baseless interrogation about their identities or activities.
Unless police have reasonable suspicion that a person is guilty of wrongdoing, they have no legal authority to stop the person and require identification. In other words, “we the people” have the right to come and go as we please without the fear of being questioned by police or forced to identify ourselves.
The Rutherford Institute has issued a Constitutional Q&A on “The Legality of Stop and ID Procedures” that provides some guidance on one’s rights if stopped and asked by police to show identification.
Unfortunately, even with legal protections on the books, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the average American to avoid falling in line with a national identification system.
We’re almost at that point already.
Passed by Congress in 2005 and scheduled to take effect nationwide by October 2020, the Real ID Act, which imposes federal standards on identity documents such as state drivers’ licenses, is the prelude to this national identification system.
Fast forward to the Trump administration’s war on illegal immigration, and you have the perfect storm necessary for the adoption of a national ID card, the ultimate human tracking device, which would make the police state’s task of monitoring, tracking and singling out individual suspects—citizen and noncitizen alike—far simpler.
Granted, in the absence of a national ID card, “we the people” are already tracked in a myriad of ways: through our state driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions; by way of our correspondence and communication devices—email, phone calls and mobile phones; through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing.
Add to this the fact that businesses, schools and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us.
All the while, data companies such as Acxiom are capturing vast caches of personal information to help airports, retailers, police and other government authorities instantly determine whether someone is the person he or she claims to be.
This informational glut—used to great advantage by both the government and corporate sectors—is converging into a mandate for “an internal passport,” a.k.a., a national ID card that would store information as basic as a person’s name, birth date and place of birth, as well as private information, including a Social Security number, fingerprint, retinal scan and personal, criminal and financial records.
A federalized, computerized, cross-referenced, databased system of identification policed by government agents would be the final nail in the coffin for privacy (not to mention a logistical security nightmare that would leave Americans even more vulnerable to every hacker in the cybersphere).
Americans have always resisted adopting a national ID card for good reason: it gives the government and its agents the ultimate power to target, track and terrorize the populace according to the government’s own nefarious purposes.
National ID card systems have been used before, by other oppressive governments, in the name of national security, invariably with horrifying results.
For instance, in Germany, the Nazis required all Jews to carry special stamped ID cards for travel within the country. A prelude to the yellow Star of David badges, these stamped cards were instrumental in identifying Jews for deportation to death camps in Poland.
Author Raul Hilberg summarizes the impact that such a system had on the Jews:
The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims.
In South Africa during apartheid, pass books were used to regulate the movement of black citizens and segregate the population. The Pass Laws Act of 1952 stipulated where, when and for how long a black African could remain in certain areas. Any government employee could strike out entries, which cancelled the permission to remain in an area. A pass book that did not have a valid entry resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the bearer.
Identity cards have also helped oppressive regimes carry out eliminationist policies such as mass expulsion, forced relocation and group denationalization. Through the use of identity cards, Ethiopian authorities were able to identify people with Eritrean affiliation during the mass expulsion of 1998. The Vietnamese government was able to locate ethnic Chinese more easily during their 1978-79 expulsion. The USSR used identity cards to force the relocation of ethnic Koreans (1937), Volga Germans (1941), Kamyks and Karachai (1943), Crimean Tartars, Meshkhetian Turks, Chechens, Ingush and Balkars (1944) and ethnic Greeks (1949). And ethnic Vietnamese were identified for group denationalization through identity cards in Cambodia in 1993, as were the Kurds in Syria in 1962.
Despite a belated apology and monetary issuance by the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to declare such a practice illegal. Moreover, laws such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empower the government to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they “suspect” of being an enemy of the state.
You see, it’s a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing government agents to stop and demand identification from someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant to empowering government agents to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to increasingly intrusive demands that they prove not only that they are legally in the country, but that they are also lawful, in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books, and not suspected of having committed some crime or other.
It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.
You may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe. Everyone is a suspect. And anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.
Remember, the police state does not discriminate.
At some point, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white. It will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen. It will not matter whether you’re rich or poor. It won’t even matter whether you’re driving, flying or walking.
After all, government-issued bullets will kill you just as easily whether you’re a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal. Government jails will hold you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. And whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, government agents will treat you like a suspect simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.
Eventually, when the police state has turned that final screw and slammed that final door, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.
We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.
All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—started out as a seemingly well-meaning plan to address some problem in society that needed a little extra help.
Be careful what you wish for: you will get more than you bargained for, especially when the government’s involved.
In the case of a national identification system, it might start off as a means of curtailing illegal immigration, but it will end up as a means of controlling the American people.
Remember, nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.
The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.
The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.
The war on immigration is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”
Where things start to get dicey is when the stakes get higher, when there’s money to be made, when there are lives on the line. All of these government-fueled wars—on drugs, on terror, on immigration—have given risen to whole industries (defense contractors, prison contractors, security contractors, etc.) devoted to profiting off them. And “we the taxpayers” are footing the bill.
It’s easy to point fingers at the Trump Administration, but this feeding frenzy started long before Trump ascended to the White House. He’s just a red herring—as journalist Glenn Greenwald puts it, “a shiny red herring—one that distracts from the failures, corruption, and malice of the very Establishment so invested in promoting it.”
We’re in trouble, and we’re all to blame: the government bureaucrats who are marching in lockstep with the regime just as much as the populace that obeys every order, that fails to question or resist or push back against government dictates that are unjust or unconstitutional or immoral, and that allows itself to become so focused on the political circus before them that they fail to heed the danger creeping up behind them.
The lessons of history are clear: chained, shackled and imprisoned in a detention camp, there is little chance of resistance. The time to act is now, before it’s too late. Indeed, there is power in numbers, but if those numbers will not unite and rise up against their oppressors, there can be no resistance.
You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.
You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.
You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.
If you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is available from AFP at www.americanfreepress.net or 1-888-699-6397. Whitehead can be contacted at email@example.com.
Ending SPLC’s Reign of Terror: Christian Ministry Sues National Hatemonger
In an exclusive interview, AFP talked with a senior staffer at the Christian ministry taking a stand against the SPLC hatemongers. He explains the critical importance to every American of D. James Kennedy Ministries’s case, why the ministry also sued Amazon, and why we must prevail against real hate if the First Amendment is to have any meaning at all.
By Dave Gahary
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), one of the legal arms of the cultural Marxist gangsters running rough-shod over this once-great nation’s traditions and institutions, is being called on the carpet. No, not by any governmental agency or regulatory body, but by a conservative, Christian ministry, which is demanding answers as to why the SPLC believes it has the right to classify the Christian charity as a “hate group.”
As this newspaper reported in its Dec. 18 & 25, 2017 edition in the article “Christianity vs. the SPLC,” Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based D. James Kennedy Ministries (DJKM) has the SPLC in its sights and has filed a federal lawsuit against the organization. The importance of this case for free speech cannot be overemphasized.
DJKM became “the fastest-growing Presbyterian church in the U.S.” when at its peak its weekly television programming aired on more than 400 TV stations and four cable networks with an audience of 3.5 million viewers in 200 countries.
In an exclusive interview with AFP, DJKM senior staff member John Rabe, DJKM’s director of creative production and on-air host, delved into great detail about why the organization feels it is critical to stand up to the SPLC ) and what the group’s leaders are hoping to accomplish.
“Because [we take] a biblical position saying that marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman—which is simply what all Christians at all times have believed over 2,000 years—and because [we say] that marriage is a one-man one-woman union, and because we’ve said that sex is ordained by God,” explained Rabe, “for upholding those views and for broadcasting those views, we have been designated a ‘hate group’ by the SPLC.”
Rabe explained why the SPLC’s designations are dangerous.
“The SPLC sets themselves up as sort of the clearinghouse of information on hate groups in America,” he said, “and so they’re frequently quoted by the media [and] they are often relied upon by law enforcement groups. And because it’s taken seriously by so many, we decided the time has come to act.”
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 23, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, “alleges, among other things, that the SPLC illegally trafficked in false and misleading descriptions of the services offered by DJKM and committed defamation against DJKM arising from the publication and distribution of false information that libels the ministry’s reputation and subjects the ministry to disgrace, ridicule, odium, and contempt in the estimation of the public.”
Rabe explained the danger the SPLC poses to everyone’s free speech.
“They are trying to marginalize and ultimately silence Christians if they can designate you as a hater,” he said. “So if you can get someone designated as a hater and get their speech designated as hate speech, then you could say they’re not covered by the First Amendment and you can have the government silence them.”
“This lawsuit has been a long time coming,” Rabe continued, “and it’s a way of planting that flag to say, ‘Thus far and no farther,’ that it’s time to take a stand.”
DJKM was founded by pastor, evangelist, and broadcaster Dennis James Kennedy, who built Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church into a $37-million-a-year powerhouse. Kennedy was such a force that the day after his passing in 2007, President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush issued a statement saying they were “deeply saddened” by his death, calling him “a man of great vision, faith, and integrity. . . . Dr. Kennedy’s message of love and hope inspired millions through the institutions he founded.”
Rabe explained the genesis of the lawsuit.
“DJKM has continued on Dr. Kennedy’s mission,” he said. “We’ve continued promoting his viewpoints, using his sermons on our television programs, and those issues . . . include issues of sexuality. Well, as you probably know, in today’s culture, to take a biblical viewpoint on those issues—which is essentially a conservative viewpoint on those issues—will make you very unpopular with those who are intent on remaking our society upon new lines.”
Although the First Amendment to the Constitution was designed to protect the states from central government power, the SPLC’s arbitrary “hate group” ratings have the potential to put a serious chill on free speech.
Rabe continued: “The SPLC is a private organization and so it’s not the government, and the SPLC calling us haters is slanderous, but it’s not a violation of the First Amendment.
“But, where the religious liberty concerns come in and the First Amendment concerns come in is that often law enforcement agencies have relied upon the SPLC’s designations. The FBI has relied upon the SPLC’s designations, and so government entities are taking these designations of the highly ideological, far-left SPLC at face value.
“There is a danger in that, and that’s one of the reasons for this lawsuit as well—that the SPLC cannot be allowed to damage people by making these false claims about them, and that the government cannot rely at face value upon the designations of this highly partisan group. It’s part of a larger strategy that will ultimately threaten our First Amendment freedoms, designating people haters and trying to argue that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
If Americans understand the First Amendment, Rabe explained, “it was to protect dissenters; it is to protect unpopular speech. And so if it doesn’t protect ‘hate speech,’ whether it actually is hate speech or whether it’s just something that someone falsely designates hate speech, if the First Amendment doesn’t cover that, I don’t know what it really does cover.”
Rabe turned his sights on the SPLC and why it is so dangerous to this country.
“The [SPLC] engage[s] in a fallacy by lumping in groups like ours that simply promote mainstream, historic, Christian doctrine with actual violent hate groups,” he said. “We all recognize there is such a thing as a hate group; there are groups based along racial lines or others [that] will designate people for targeting and will incite violence against those kind of people—although [it’s] very interesting to note that radical Islam is largely absent from the SPLC’s hate maps. We’ve had mosques in America where terrorist attacks had been coordinated in the United States—in Virginia and elsewhere—and yet these mosques do not appear on the SPLC’s hate map. They’re very selective about the groups that they choose, and they end up lumping together Christian organizations—like the Family Research Council and DJKM and the Alliance Defending Freedom, who simply defends the First Amendment in court—together with groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, which is extremely disingenuous.”
Rabe explained how the SPLC’s ostensible mission has swayed far from its beginnings.
“The SPLC was founded after the bulk of the civil rights movement by an attorney named Morris Dees in 1971,” Rabe said. “Early on, they fought some cases in court against the Ku Klux Klan and others and built a reputation as an anti-hate group organization that will do something about it during that period. However, if you look beyond the early ‘70s you will be very hard-pressed to find actual cases of the SPLC going up against true hate groups and being effective against them. What you instead find is that they’ve largely built an enormous fundraising machine [by] basically [scaring] Northeastern liberals who never met a Christian or never met a conservative into thinking that there are hate groups around every corner. They currently have—and this is not speculation, this is in their own financial filings—over $300 million in endowments right now, much of that sitting in offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.”
Besides the SPLC, DJKM is also suing Amazon, “the world’s largest online shopping retailer,” headed by Jeff Bezos, who is on track to become the wealthiest person in history, worth over $100 billion.
Rabe explained why the online powerhouse is included in the lawsuit. “Amazon.com has been relying upon the SPLC’s hate group designations” for their charity program called AmazonSmile, he said. This program allows customers to donate a portion of the purchase price to a charitable organization, but Rabe said they were barred due to the SPLC’s classification.
“We applied to become one of the charity groups, and they refused us entrance into AmazonSmile,” Rabe explained. “The basis that they gave us was that ‘you’ve been designated by the SPLC as a hate group.’ We view this as religious discrimination because we have been falsely designated a hate group simply for holding traditional orthodox Christian beliefs on issues like sexuality.”
DJKM’s lawsuit is being litigated by Texas-based National Center for Life and Liberty, headed by David C. Gibbs III, who is on the ministry’s board of directors and is a frequent Fox News legal contributor. Gibbs litigated the Terri Schiavo case, the gripping 1990-2005 “right-to-die” legal matter that saw Theresa Marie “Terri” Schiavo in an “irreversible persistent vegetative state” with her husband wishing to remove her feeding tube. Schiavo’s parents challenged the medical diagnosis, and the prolonged series of legal challenges reached state and federal politicians including President George W. Bush, causing a seven-year delay before Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed, on March 18, 2005. She died 13 days later.
Rabe discussed the federal lawsuit, its cost, and its significance against the arguably out-of-control, rogue SPLC.
“I can tell you right now we do not have a $300 million bank account at DJKM, not anywhere near it,” said Rabe, “so this is a little bit of a David-and-Goliath type of situation. They are far, far larger than we are in terms of resources, in terms of their ability to just sort of overwhelm us with motions and with what lawyers call ‘punitive discovery,’ frivolous discovery claims. So we are gonna be up against it here, so anyone who feels led to help with that, we welcome that, as well as prayer.”
Those wishing to donate to support DJKM’s lawsuit can do so at djameskennedy.org/donate or via U.S. Mail to D. James Kennedy Ministries, P.O. Box 11184, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339.
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 film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See the website erasingtheliberty.com or call (850) 677-0344 for more information.
The Times Rides to Mueller’s Rescue
The New York Times has explained it was not the “dirty dossier” from former spy Christopher Steele, paid for by the Democrats, that led to the FBI’s endless investigation of President Trump for supposedly colluding with Russia to steal the election. Rather, a drunken disclosure of information to the Australian ambassador to the U.S. prompted the massive counterintelligence investigation during the campaign. But Pat Buchanan raises numerous questions about this new “disclosure.”
By Patrick J. Buchanan
What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the Trump presidency?
As James Comey’s FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove Donald Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting this investigation?
What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump’s team?
Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as Mueller’s men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.
Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap warrants of Trump’s team are said to have been issued on the basis of a “dirty dossier” that was floating around town in 2016—but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could not validate its lurid allegations.
Who produced the dossier?
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC.
Writes the Washington Times, Steele “paid Kremlin sources with Democratic cash.”
Yet, if Steele’s dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier’s contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem.
Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his investigation discredited.
“Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry”
The story that followed correctly framed the crucial question:
“What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential election?”
The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for:
“It was not, as Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.”
The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an “upscale London Bar” in the West End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Papadopoulos had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton’s emails.
Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June, Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government, which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.
The Times’s story pounds home this version of events:
“The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Trump’s associates conspired.”
This, the Times assures us, “answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year.”
But if Papadopoulos’s drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017?
According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he had learned from the Russians.
And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.
If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him—as compared to Steele?
Yet another major question remains unanswered.
If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking “into Russian attempts to disrupt the elections,” why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?
If Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation?
Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign’s ties to Russian agents than to Trumpian “collusion” that is yet unproven?
Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished:
They have kept alive a special counsel’s investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI’s reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government.
Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.
Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Bookstore.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM
Was the Democrat-funded Steele dossier a basis of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation?
That is the narrative now being fed by the mainstream media. According to The New York Times’s “bombshell” report published on Dec. 30, 2017, “when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.”
So, by the time Australia tipped off the U.S. about Papadopoulos, Steele had already fingered Page in his own investigation on Trump-Russia collusion.
Later, after WikiLeaks published on July 22, 2016, Steele alleged then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was at the heart of the conspiracy to work with Russia to put the emails onto WikiLeaks, with Page as the intermediary. According to the dossier, it was “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries.”
Steele defined the conspiracy explicitly: “The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the WikiLeaks platform. The reason for using WikiLeaks was ‘plausible deniability,’ and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team. In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue. . . .”
What is controversial is not whether Australia tipped off the U.S. about Papadopoulos before or after the Page warrant was ordered. It is whether Page’s civil rights were violated and a national security investigation via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court was ordered into the Trump campaign using a Democrat-funded political hit piece. Why?
Because according to the law, to get a warrant on Page, there needed to be probable cause that he specifically was acting as a foreign agent. Besides the Steele dossier, what evidence has been presented that he was acting as an agent? Was that the basis for the FISA court warrant?
What if it was inaccurate, and Manafort and Page were never coordinating with Russia on helping the DNC emails appearing on Wikileaks at all?
Then what you have are not only Steele’s sources being in question, if they even existed, but, Papadopoulos or no, you have the Democrats paying a British former spy to produce an intelligence dossier to pin their own troubles, that is, embarrassing emails being published in the news, on Trump in an outlandish foreign conspiracy theory.
Next, the Obama administration used that allegation to justify a full-scale counterintelligence investigation into the opposition party in an election year, which is now leading to prosecutions for anyone unfortunate enough to have been questioned by the FBI without having an attorney present.
It should not be overlooked that once campaign officials like Page or Manafort had FISA warrants into them, all their contacts with the campaign would have been subjected to surveillance as well.
So even if Papadopoulos had communicated with Russian or other foreign contacts, that generally could not have been used to secure a warrant against Page for the same, unless those contacts had actually implicated Page like the dossier did.
Therefore, The New York Times’s “bombshell” appears to be more designed to deflect attention away from the egregious violation of rights and abuse of the nation’s intelligence powers that using the Democrat-funded dossier on Page and others would entail than it suggests that Papadopoulos’s foreign contacts somehow justified how the rest of the investigation was carried out.
There are other troubling questions. For starters, Papadopoulos was not questioned by the FBI until 2017, after the election had occurred. Was there a warrant to investigate his emails, which formed the basis for the guilty plea that he lied to investigators? If so, when was it obtained? When was Page’s warrant obtained?
Finally, was the Democrat-funded dossier, or information from the dossier, used to obtain FISA court warrants against Trump campaign and then transition officials?
Papadopoulos’s limited involvement in this whole affair does not begin to justify the breadth of the investigation that was undertaken by the Obama administration into the Trump campaign. They needed more. And the Steele dossier might have been just the thing that did the trick.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.
Unlike Nixon, Trump Will Not Go Quietly
Patrick Buchanan compares Watergate to Russiagate, and President Trump to President Nixon, and concludes if the situation should become even more similar, Donald Trump is not likely to “go quietly.”
By Patrick Buchanan
On Aug. 9, 1974, Richard Nixon bowed to the inevitability of impeachment and conviction by a Democratic Senate and resigned.
The prospect of such an end for Donald Trump has this city drooling. Yet, comparing Russiagate and Watergate, history is not likely to repeat itself.
First, the underlying crime in Watergate, a break-in to wiretap offices of the DNC, had been traced, within 48 hours, to the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
In Russiagate, the underlying crime—the “collusion” of Trump’s campaign with the Kremlin to hack into the emails of the DNC—has, after 18 months of investigating, still not been established.
Campaign manager Paul Manafort has been indicted, but for financial crimes committed long before he enlisted with Trump.
Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty to lying about phone calls he made to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but only after Trump had been elected and Flynn had been named national security adviser.
Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats.
This is what security advisers do.
Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.
Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn.
But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority.
And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been “extremely careless” in transmitting security secrets over her private email server.
We now know that the first draft of Comey’s statement described Clinton as “grossly negligent,” the precise statute language for an indictment.
We also now know that helping to edit Comey’s first draft to soften its impact was Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia, received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.
Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel—to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey’s predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller.
Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump’s travel ban.
FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend.
Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton’s email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.
In Mueller’s tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a connection between Hillary’s campaign and Russian spies—to find dirt to smear and destroy Trump and his campaign—has been fairly well established.
By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, to go dirt-diving on Trump.
Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels.
While the truth of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey’s FBI rose like a hungry trout on learning of its contents.
There are credible allegations Comey’s FBI sought to hire Steele and used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump—and that its contents were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.
This week, we learned that the Justice Department’s Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing is starting to stink.
Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree?
Is Mueller’s Dump Trump team investigating the wrong campaign?
There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the Deep State-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment.
Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him, and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him.
Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner’s sword fall with dignity.
If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly.
In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there’s gonna be a “whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on.”
Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Bookstore.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM
Audio Interview: DAV Execs Not Changing Their Ways
News that the top dog at the Disabled American Veterans makes $600,000, astoundingly double what he made in 2011, has veterans angry. With so many veterans living paycheck to paycheck and tens of thousands more living on the streets, an organization focused on helping disabled veterans get the VA support they’re due should prioritize its funding with those veterans in mind.
By Dave Gahary
When this reporter was summarily tossed out of the veterans’ charity, the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), in February 2014 for shining a light on the ungodly sums the officers of that 501(c)(4) organization were paying themselves, it seemed beyond reason that their incomes could climb much higher. Last month, however, when the DAV’s Internal Revenue Service Form 990 for 2016 was released on the organization’s website, the quaint belief that somehow greed could be contained was shown the door. In five short years, since this newspaper first analyzed DAV’s 2011 Form 990, the “leader” of that organization saw his income more than double, from $263,185 to $527,292.
Incredibly, a portion of his income, $225,450—over 40%—was classified as “retirement and other deferred compensation,” and is not taxed. In other words, while most Americans—especially disabled veterans—are living paycheck to paycheck, DAV’s head is paid so much that almost half of that income can be set aside for retirement and is not needed today.
Other highly compensated individuals employed by the charity also saw huge hikes in their pay over that same time period, though nowhere near what the top dog, Mississippi-born J. Marc Burgess, brought home. His pay is even more striking given the fact that the charity didn’t have such a great year: It brought in around $2 million less than the year before and still managed to lose around $12 million, that is, revenues less expenses. Never mind the fact that on any given night, there are tens of thousands of veterans who call the street their home.
The 1.3 million-member DAV, founded in 1920 to help disabled veterans of the U.S. armed forces— returning from World War I—and their families adapt to living with physical and mental disabilities, is chartered by Congress and headquartered in Cold Spring, Ky.
Every state in the union has a DAV department, including Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, and each of those has chapters associated with it. Currently, there are approximately 1,300 chapters across the country. The primary function of the DAV has been to serve as a veteran’s advocate for filing Veterans Administration (VA) disability claims.
Listen to AFP’s exclusive interview with Stephen I. Marcus, a former DAV member:
American Free Press interviewed 75-year-old, 100% disabled American veteran Steven I. Marcus, a former member of the DAV, for his views on the 2016 Form 990.
“I have a lot of friends who are active members of the DAV,” he began, “but on the local level, and they do good work in the local community with the veterans. But at the very top of the DAV, to me, they’re all bloodsuckers; they’re self-serving. They fly an airplane and they get guys like that actor, Danny Aiello, [who] goes on television. When I ran into Danny, because he doesn’t live that far from me, I told him, ‘You know, Danny, I love you as an actor, but somebody’s giving you bad news, because the Disabled American Veterans is a rip-off.’ ”
Marcus touched on the ongoing scandalous tragedy of veterans dying on VA waiting lists for healthcare while the DAV feeds at the gilded trough.
“These bloodsuckers take money; they fly a plane all over the country,” he bemoaned. “What the hell does that do for the disabled American veterans when guys wait in line and die? I think 20 veterans a day die waiting in line at the VA.”
Marcus commented upon the fact that so many veterans are homeless in this once-great nation, while organizations like the DAV never seem to tire of enriching themselves. “It’s totally disgraceful that we do this, really and truly,” he said.
“These are people, patriots, who served the country honorably. Remember, when we raised our right hand, we swore to uphold the Constitution, and if necessary we would give our life for our country. But at the same time we expected that if we got hurt we’d be taken care of. And they’re not being taken care of. It’s a disgrace.”
Marcus directed his criticism at those who are at the top of the DAV.
“These people are self-serving; all they’re interested in is money,” Marcus continued. “If you [want to] help veterans, why don’t you give back all your money, and give it to the veterans who need the help?”
AFP asked Mr. Marcus to reflect on the fact that Burgess’s annual income has not only exceeded that of the president of the United States but should surpass the $1 million mark in a few years.
“If I sound sarcastic, I am,” he said. “If I sound bitter, I am. I don’t even want to admit anymore that I belonged to the DAV at one time. As far as I’m concerned, the only thing disabled about them is their ability to take care of the people.”
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 erasingtheliberty.com for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.
America’s Reign of Terror: A Nation Reaps What It Sows
The shadow government’s tyranny has made the U.S. the biggest purveyor of terrorism on the planet. And it’s the American people suffering the consequences.
By John Whitehead
“The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” ― James Madison
What country has a pattern and practice of entrapment that involves targeting vulnerable individuals, feeding them with the propaganda, know-how and weapons intended to turn them into terrorists, and then arresting them as part of an elaborately orchestrated counterterrorism sting? The U.S. government.
The U.S. government isn’t protecting us from terrorism.
The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror.
Just think about it for a minute: almost every tyranny being perpetrated against the citizenry—purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure—has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by our own government.
Bio-chemical attacks. The nuclear arms race.
Surveillance. The drug wars.
In almost every instance, the U.S. government has in its typical Machiavellian fashion sown the seeds of terror domestically and internationally in order to expand its own totalitarian powers.
It’s time to wake up and stop being deceived by government propaganda.
We’re not dealing with a government that exists to serve its people, protect their liberties and ensure their happiness. Rather, these are the diabolical machinations of a make-works program carried out on an epic scale whose only purpose is to keep the powers-that-be permanently (and profitably) employed.
Case in point: For years now, the U.S. government has been creating what one intelligence insider referred to as a cyber-army capable of offensive attacks.
Even as the U.S. government confronts rival powers over widespread Internet espionage, it has become the biggest buyer in a burgeoning gray market where hackers and security firms sell tools for breaking into computers. The strategy is spurring concern in the technology industry and intelligence community that Washington is in effect encouraging hacking and failing to disclose to software companies and customers the vulnerabilities exploited by the purchased hacks. That’s because U.S. intelligence and military agencies aren’t buying the tools primarily to fend off attacks. Rather, they are using the tools to infiltrate computer networks overseas, leaving behind spy programs and cyber-weapons that can disrupt data or damage systems.
And now we learn that the NSA is responsible for the latest threat posed by the “WannaCry” or “Wanna Decryptor” malware worm, which—as a result of hackers accessing the government’s arsenal—has hijacked more than 57,000 computers and crippled health care, communications infrastructure, logistics, and government entities in more than 70 countries already.
All the while the government was repeatedly warned about the dangers of using criminal tactics to wage its own cyberwars.
It was warned about the consequences of blowback should its cyberweapons get into the wrong hands.
The government chose to ignore the warnings.
That’s exactly how the 9/11 attacks unfolded.
First, the government helped to create the menace that was al-Qaida and then, when bin Laden had left the nation reeling in shock (despite countless warnings that fell on tone-deaf ears), it demanded—and was given—immense new powers in the form of the USA Patriot Act in order to fight the very danger it had created.
This has become the shadow government’s modus operandi regardless of which party controls the White House: the government creates a menace—knowing full well the ramifications such a danger might pose to the public—then without ever owning up to the part it played in unleashing that particular menace on an unsuspecting populace, it demands additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threat.
Yet the powers-that-be don’t really want us to feel safe.
They want us cowering and afraid and willing to relinquish every last one of our freedoms in exchange for their phantom promises of security.
As a result, it’s the American people who pay the price for the government’s insatiable greed and quest for power.
We’re the ones to suffer the blowback.
Blowback: a term originating from within the American Intelligence community, denoting the unintended consequences, unwanted side-effects, or suffered repercussions of a covert operation that fall back on those responsible for the aforementioned operations.
Unfortunately, “we the people” are the ones who keep reaping what the government sows.
We’re the ones who suffer every time, directly and indirectly, from the blowback.
We’re made to pay trillions of dollars in blood money to a military ind
ustrial complex that kills without conscience. We’ve been saddled with a crumbling infrastructure, impoverished cities and a faltering economy while our tax dollars are squandered on lavish military installations and used to prop up foreign economies. We’ve been stripped of our freedoms. We’re treated like suspects and enemy combatants. We’re spied on by government agents: our communications read, our movements tracked, our faces mapped, our biometrics entered into a government database. We’re terrorized by militarized police who roam our communities and SWAT teams that break into our homes. We’re subjected to invasive patdowns in airports, roadside strip searches and cavity probes, forced blood draws.
This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.
We can persuade ourselves that life is still good, that America is still beautiful, and that “we the people” are still free.
However, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the moment you tune out the carefully constructed distractions—the year-round sports entertainment, the political theatrics, the military’s war cries, the president’s chest-thumping, and the techno-gadgets and social media that keep us oblivious to what’s really going on in the world around us—you quickly find that the only credible threat to our safety and national security is in fact the government itself.
As science fiction writer Philip K. Dick warned, “Don’t believe what you see; it’s an enthralling—[and] destructive, evil snare. Under it is a totally different world, even placed differently along the linear axis.”
In other words, all is not as it seems.
The powers-that-be are not acting in our best interests.
“We the people” are not free.
The government is not our friend.
And America will never be safe or secure as long as our government continues to pillage and plunder and bomb and bulldoze and kill and create instability and fund insurgencies and police the globe.
So what can we do to stop the blowback, liberate the country from the iron-clad grip of the military industrial complex, and get back to a point where freedom actually means something?
For starters, get your priorities in order. As long as Americans are more inclined to be offended over the fate of a Confederate statue rather than the government’s blatant disregard for the Constitution and human rights, then the status quo will remain.
Stop playing politics with your principles. As long as Americans persist in thinking like Republicans and Democrats—refusing to recognize that every administration in recent years has embraced and advanced the government’s authoritarian tactics—then the status quo will remain.
Value all human life as worthy of protection. As long as Americans, including those who claim to value the sanctity of human life, not only turn a blind eye to the government’s indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians but champion them, then the status quo will remain.
Recognize that in the eyes of the government, we’re all expendable. As long as we allow the government to play this dangerous game in which “we the people” are little more than pawns to be used, abused, easily manipulated and just as easily discarded—whether it’s under the guise of national security, the war on terror, the war on drugs, or any other manufactured bogeyman it can dream up—then the status quo will remain.
Demand that the government stop creating, stockpiling and deploying weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical, biological, cyber, etc. As long as the government continues to use our tax dollars to create, stockpile and deploy weapons of mass destruction—whether those weapons are meant to kill, maim or disable (as in the case of the WannaCry computer virus)—we will be vulnerable to anyone who attempts to use those weapons against us and the status quo will remain.
From George Washington’s “farewell address” to Dwight Eisenhower’s invention of the phrase “military-industrial complex,” American leaders have warned about the dangers of a bloated, permanent, expensive military establishment that has lost its relationship to the country because service in it is no longer an obligation of citizenship. Our military operates the biggest arms sales operation on earth; it rapes girls, women and schoolchildren in Okinawa; it cuts ski-lift cables in Italy, killing twenty vacationers, and dismisses what its insubordinate pilots have done as a “training accident”; it allows its nuclear attack submarines to be used for joy rides for wealthy civilian supporters and then covers up the negligence that caused the sinking of a Japanese high school training ship; it propagandizes the nation with Hollywood films glorifying military service (Pearl Harbor); and it manipulates the political process to get more carrier task forces, antimissile missiles, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers and other expensive gadgets for which we have no conceivable use. Two of the most influential federal institutions are not in Washington but on the south side of the Potomac River–the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. Given their influence today, one must conclude that the government outlined in the Constitution of 1787 no longer bears much relationship to the government that actually rules from Washington. Until that is corrected, we should probably stop talking about “democracy” and “human rights.”
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available from the American Free Press bookstore. Whitehead can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Big Brother Is Watching You: Don’t Fall for the NSA’s Latest Ploy
“You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” — George Orwell, 1984
By John Whitehead
Supposedly the National Security Administration is going to stop collecting certain Internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target. Privacy advocates are hailing it as a major victory for Americans whose communications have been caught in the NSA’s dragnet. If this is a victory, it’s a hollow victory.
Since its creation in 1952, when President Harry S. Truman issued a secret executive order establishing the NSA as the hub of the government’s foreign intelligence activities, the agency has been covertly spying on Americans, listening in on their phone calls, reading their mail, and monitoring their communications.
For instance, under Project SHAMROCK, the NSA spied on telegrams to and from the U.S., as well as the correspondence of American citizens. Moreover, as the Saturday Evening Postreports, “Under Project MINARET, the NSA monitored the communications of civil rights leaders and opponents of the Vietnam War, including targets such as Martin Luther King Jr., Mohammed Ali, Jane Fonda, and two active U.S. Senators. The NSA had launched this program in 1967 to monitor suspected terrorists and drug traffickers, but successive presidents used it to track all manner of political dissidents.”
Nothing changed under Barack Obama. In fact, the violations worsened, with the NSA authorized to secretly collect Internet and telephone data on millions of Americans, as well as on foreign governments.
As long as the government is allowed to make a mockery of the law—be it the Constitution, the FISA law, or any other law intended to limit its reach and curtail its activities—and is permitted to operate behind closed doors, relying on secret courts, secret budgets and secret interpretations of the laws of the land, there will be no reform.
Presidents, politicians, and court rulings have come and gone over the course of the NSA’s 60-year history, but none of them have done much to put an end to the NSA’s “technotyranny.”
The beast has outgrown its chains. It will not be restrained.
Moreover, even if the NSA could be reformed, the problem of government surveillance goes far beyond the criminal activities of this one agency.
In fact, long before the NSA became the agency we loved to hate, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration were carrying out their own secret mass surveillance on an unsuspecting populace. Just about every branch of the government—from the U.S. Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people.
Then there are the fusion and counterterrorism centers that gather all of the data from the smaller government spies—the police, public health officials, transportation, etc.—and make it accessible for all those in power. And, of course, that doesn’t even begin to touch on the complicity of the corporate sector, which buys and sells us from cradle to grave, until we have no more data left to mine.
Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on, and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior.
Corporate trackers monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts, and other activities taking place in the cybersphere. For example, every time you use a loyalty card at the grocery store or elsewhere, your purchases are being monitored, mined for data, and sold to the highest bidder. Every time you use your credit or debit card, or your digital “wallet,” your transactions are being tracked. Uber’s ride service app knows where you are even when you are not actively using the service. Even store mannequins are being used to monitor and identify shoppers with facial recognition software.
Major cities are being transformed into “Smart Cities” filled with sensors in everything from pavement to lamp posts, and all of that data is being linked together to monitor the day-to-day lives of everyone in them. In some cities, even the sewage is being monitored and could potentially be used to find out what drugs a household may have used.
All of your medical data in the near future will be constantly monitored, and while the data is supposed to only be shared with your doctor, in practice it will be accessible by any number of government and private actors. Microchips in “smart pills” that can communicate with tablet devices to ensure the elderly take their medications already exist. A transponder injected into the skin that contains a person’s entire medical history has been approved by the FDA. Wearable health-monitoring devices likewise can be used to monitor you, and the information collected can be used in a court of law. Smart toothbrushes can monitor your brushing habits and communicate them to your dentist, or anyone else. Smart alarm clocks can monitor your sleep habits.
Like all other devices relying on the Internet of Things (IoT) to communicate, these can be hacked into by government and private corporations.
The “Internet of things” (IoT) refers to the growing number of “smart” appliances and electronic devices now connected to the Internet and capable of interacting with each other and being controlled remotely. These range from thermostats and coffee makers to cars and TVs.
Of course, there’s a price to pay for such easy control and access. That price amounts to relinquishing control of and access to your home to the government and its corporate partners. For example, while Samsung’s Smart TVs are capable of “listening” to what you say, thereby allowing users to control the TV using voice commands, it also records everything you say and relays it to a third party. Same goes for Amazon’s Echo.
“Smart houses” filled with IoT-capable devices are just starting to come into play, but by 2020 Samsung pledges that all of its devices, including its household appliances, will be IoT capable. Such products include ovens, microwaves, vacuums (including robot vacuums), refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers, as well as smart hubs which coordinate everything. Coffee makers and toasters are also being made IoT compatible.
Smart TVs seemingly out of Orwell’s 1984 will also collect data and spy on you. Modern gaming consoles have Internet connections, and those with cameras can be used to spy like any smartphone or computer. Smart power outlets can turn your lights on and off remotely, and smart thermostats work similarly.
All of them monitor when you’re at home or not, as can smart home security systems. Wi-Fi routers can even monitor the inside of your home and distinguish between different individuals in the house, while reading their lips to “hear” what they say. Other forms of home monitoring systems for the elderly can be hacked and used by anyone.
Already the web-enabled “Hello Barbie” doll has been the center of a hacking controversy, in which security experts disclosed a number of significant security flaws with the toy.
Other smart objects include smart golf clubs, which monitor the speed, acceleration, and swing plane of your golf swing, smart shoes which track your location and can guide you on where to go. Tostitos has even unveiled a promotional smart bag of chips which can tell you if you’ve been drinking too much.
That doesn’t even begin to touch on all of the government’s many methods of spying on its citizens. For instance, police have been using Stingray devices mounted on their cruisers to intercept cell phone calls and text messages without court-issued search warrants.
Doppler radar devices, which can detect human breathing and movement within a home, are already being employed by the police to peer inside a suspect’s home.
Sidewalk and “public space” cameras, sold to gullible communities as a sure-fire means of fighting crime, is yet another DHS program that is blanketing small and large towns alike with government-funded and monitored surveillance cameras. It’s all part of a public-private partnership that gives government officials access to all manner of surveillance cameras, on sidewalks, on buildings, on buses, even those installed on private property.
Couple these surveillance cameras with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology and you have the makings of “pre-crime” cameras, which scan your mannerisms, compare you to pre-set parameters for “normal” behavior, and alert the police if you trigger any computerized alarms as being “suspicious.”
Capitalizing on a series of notorious abductions of college-aged students, several states are pushing to expand their biometric and DNA databases by requiring that anyone accused of a misdemeanor have their DNA collected and catalogued. Technology is already available that allows the government to collect biometrics such as fingerprints from a distance, without a person’s cooperation or knowledge. One system can actually scan and identify a fingerprint from nearly 20 feet away.
Radar guns have long been the speed cop’s best friend, allowing him to hide out by the side of the road, identify speeding cars, and then radio ahead to a police car, which does the dirty work of pulling the driver over and issuing a ticket. Now, developers are hard at work on a radar gun that can actually show if you or someone in your car is texting. No word yet on whether the technology will also be able to detect the contents of that text message.
It’s a sure bet that anything the government welcomes (and funds) too enthusiastically is bound to be a Trojan horse full of nasty surprises. Case in point: police body cameras. Hailed as the easy fix solution to police abuses, these body cameras—made possible by funding from the Department of Justice—are turning police officers into roving surveillance cameras. Of course, if you try to request access to that footage, you’ll find yourself being led a merry and costly chase through miles of red tape, bureaucratic footmen, and unhelpful courts.
Drones, which are taking to the skies en masse, will be the converging point for all of the weapons and technology already available to law enforcement agencies. This means drones that can listen in on your phone calls, see through the walls of your home, scan your biometrics, photograph you and track your movements, and even corral you with sophisticated weaponry.
It’s a given that the government’s tactics are always more advanced than we know, so there’s no knowing what new technologies are already being deployed against us without our knowledge. Certainly, by the time we learn about a particular method of surveillance or new technological gadget, it’s a sure bet that the government has been using it covertly for years already.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, we’ve all become suspects, a.k.a. potential criminals.
As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.
This is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: The very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, and probation officer.
So don’t get too excited about the NSA’s latest concession.
It won’t stop Big Brother from watching you.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is available from the AFP Bookstore. Whitehead can be contacted at email@example.com.
American Free Press Is Under Attack!
Dear American Free Press supporter:
Let’s be honest. As far as cash reserves go, the bank account of American Free Press is usually as empty as Mother Hubbard’s cupboard. We struggle every month to make ends meet, but always get the job done. We publish a real newspaper—not one loaded with the kind of fake news you get from the controlled media and so many “alternative” media outlets who don’t bother to check the facts. That’s right: Our bank account is small, but our staff and writers have the hearts of lions.
And though our print subscribership is relatively small and we are lucky to crack the top 75,000 websites in the world every year, we certainly get noticed by a lot of high-powered agitators.
Just recently, for instance, Internet giant Google informed us that they will no longer do business with us. On February 9, we received a termination notice from the brass at Google ending our advertising contract. The reason? AFP is, in a nutshell, too politically incorrect for them. Incidentally, we were making just $144 a month from what is known as Google Ad Sense. Google Ad Sense monitors website traffic and discovered last year that AFP’s Internet site, staffed by just one part-time employee, had, on average, nearly 400,000 different people reading a grand total of over 1.7 million pages on our website every month.
Despite the small staff and the minimal budget, these are very good numbers for some of the “big boys,” let alone one small, independent newspaper fighting for its existence.
But Google didn’t care. They informed us our relationship was over—without the right of appeal—because of what they called a “site-wide violation of policy” related to articles and products they think are too hot to handle. Fine, we figured. What’s $144 a month in the grand scheme of things?
But then we thought we’d look a little closer. Recently, a wide-eyed, wet-behind-the-ears journalist named Tess Townsend, writing for a website named “Recode,” made a shocking admission. Google did not make this decision on a whim. No. This massive company was pressured into the move by an allegedly “non-profit” gang of “free speech watchdogs” called Media Matters for America, a group once sued by C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel for George H.W. Bush, for violating the rules of non-profit organizations by using their website as a platform to smear conservatives. In 2011, Gray sent a letter to the IRS alleging that Media Matters’s activities were not primarily educational, but instead “unlawful conduct.” He asked that the tax-exempt status of Media Matters be revoked! And it should have been.
But who is Media Matters, and why does it matter?
Media Matters for America was started in 2004 by a man named David Brock (the former boyfriend of James Alefantis of Comet Ping Pong Pizza fame). Their office space was initially supplied free of charge by John Podesta, with whose name you are no doubt familiar. And guess who gave her time as a volunteer consultant for Media Matters in the early days of its formation? None other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But let’s delve a little deeper. A non-profit organization like Media Matters, with a fancy website and a staff busting out of their D.C. offices (long-since moved out of the cramped office space supplied by Podesta) must have received funding from somewhere. But from where? And from whom?
It turns out that Media Matters got a big kick start with a $2 million donation from a group called MoveOn.org. You remember them, right? They’re the group that helps organize anarchistic rallies against Donald Trump and other conservative politicians and journalists, supplying logistics and funds so leftists of all stripes can shut down cities, tie up traffic, and keep hardworking people like you and me from getting to work so we can feed our families while groups like Black Lives Matter and ski mask-wearing hooligans can destroy the personal property of businesses, throw bricks through shop windows, physically attack people they don’t agree with, and even rain down rocks and stones on average Americans trying to attend conservative political rallies.
Hundreds of them were arrested during the Trump inauguration because, honestly, they could have killed people. And, according to D.C. police, they almost did. They have no concern for free speech. No concern for differing opinions. And they certainly don’t care a lick for anyone who won’t adopt their Marxist political agenda.
The Left definitely does not practice the “tolerance” it preaches.
But the plot thickens . . .
By the way, MoveOn.org is directly funded by one of the richest leftist troublemakers in the world. You guessed it. Hungarian-American George Soros. It’s clear that nothing goes on at MoveOn.org that slimeball Soros does not know about personally. According to a CNN report, Soros himself donated $1 million to Media Matters in its early stages. In a 2014 interview, founder Brock said Soros’s donations only accounted for “less than 10%” of the budget of Media Matters.
So, trust me when I say, there is a real move afoot to destroy free speech in America, led by some of the richest and best-funded billionaires and “advocacy” groups in the world. And American Free Press has now become a focus of these powerful culture munchers—ones that don’t really like that you and I have opinions about things that are in stark contrast to theirs.
Yes, American Free Press is now on the front lines of a battle for freedom of speech. And what a battle it will be.
Am I exaggerating? I don’t think so . . .
They ALL have axes to grind with AMERICAN FREE PRESS . . .
Does left-leaning Arianna Huffington have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Huffington, who went out of her way to commission a hit piece on American Free Press last year, was peeved when we wouldn’t just lie down and shut up after she trained both barrels of her smear machine at AFP. After she attacked us, we went on the offensive and exposed her as a fraud—a fraud who, judging from former employees, had more complaints from workers than the Wicked Witch of the West. Has she got money to burn? She sure does, as we’ll explain later.
Does John Podesta have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Did we hit a little close to home with our honest coverage of his strangely intimate involvement with Hillary?
Does Hillary Clinton have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Maybe a little. AFP sold literally thousands of copies of Hillary (And Bill)—Victor Thorn’s magnum opus on the crimes of the Clintons. Thorn is no longer with us, but he made his mark and ruffled that vulture’s feathers.
Does George Soros have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Well, it’s AFP that has consistently exposed his involvement in nearly every anti-American “protest” group out there, from Black Lives Matter to pro-abortion groups to anti-Trump rabble-rousers and to slimy outfits like Media Matters, that insist all dissenting viewpoints be crushed without mercy.
Now let’s do a little math . . .
• According to the website “How-Rich.com,” John Podesta is worth $12 million.
• According to “CelebrityNetWorth.com,” Arianna Huffington is worth $50 million.
• Bill and Hillary Clinton are alleged to be worth as much as $50 million. But we know that is a low-ball figure. According to The Washington Post (and we think we can trust them on this, but probably not for much else besides the weather and the sports scores), the Clintons have amassed a global empire including the Clinton Foundation that may be, in fact, worth $2 billion.
• And what about George Soros? According to Forbes magazine, Soros was worth, in 2017—now take a deep breath—$25.2 billion.
• And Google. You better sit down if you aren’t already. Larry Page and Sergey Brin are together worth a combined $498 billion!
• The aforementioned president of Media Matters, David Brock, by the way, makes (according to its non-profit tax form for 2011) more than $286,000 per year. Do you realize that would pay every single staff member and freelance writer AFP employs for an entire year?
That’s some high-octane pocketbook power—all trained on American Free Press. But what’s the real reason “THEY” hate AFP?
Could it be because:
• AFP refuses to kowtow to these overlords of the mass media and politics?
• AFP refuses to run their cookie-cutter fake news stories and instead debunks them?
• AFP—with the support of our readers—consistently scoops them issue after issue?
• AFP actually checks facts before running with a story?
• AFP—alone among all independent news media—has managed to continue to publish a newspaper in print and on the web, on a shoestring budget, that consistently outperforms the largest media outlets in the world?
• AFP is not controlled by advertisers, lobbying groups or the CIA? If you know anything about “Operation Mockingbird,” you know the CIA has a long history of using the mainstream media to plant stories designed to condition the American public for war.
Is it possible American Free Press irritates the masters of the media more than any other news outlet in business today?
Well, whatever we are doing, the likes of those mentioned above apparently have a hive of African killer bees in their bonnets. They are determined to shut us up.
But guess what?
THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
But we have to admit: There is only one way we can survive to win this battle. Fortunately, we have something all those billionaires and millionaires and media moguls don’t have . . . a dedicated group of subscribers and supporters—average Americans—who understand the importance of a truly independent media. And you are one of these people.
You are all our dedicated partners in our effort to get the truth out.
We’re not asking for a billion dollars. Nor a million. Nor $100,000 . . .
We just want enough to keep on publishing, to keep on irritating the powers that be by not giving in. And we vow that we will keep publishing until we either drop dead or emerge victorious.
By surviving . . . we win. And so does America.
Without American Free Press, what is there, really? Just a tiny handful of papers that are in the same boat as AFP. We can count them on one hand. And kudos to them as well.
But let’s be honest. Of those, AFP is the loudest, most effective independent voice for freedom in this country today that is not controlled by outside, un-American agitators.
As long as you like what we are doing and are willing to open your wallets every few months and send in whatever you can, we will not be silenced.
Your support means we will never be forced to crawl up to the altar of fake news and worship at the feet of the high priests of political correctness.
AFP may very well be the last real newspaper in America with any substantial voice.
But, without you, our voice could one day go silent. And that’s no lie.
We’re not in it for the profit. We’re in it for America. And we know you are, too.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart,
– Paul Angel Vice Chairman / Art Director / Production Manager / Chief Branding Officer American Free Press
P.S. To the list of high-powered muckety-mucks who want to silence AFP, you can add the Anti-Defamation League (net assets of $90 million for 2015) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (currently worth more than $250 million). They have been trying since we started to shut our doors—but have failed again and again.
P.P.S. While piecing together this request for assistance, I just got word from our webmaster that YouTube, the massive video channel, can be added to the list of companies that want our message censored. Worth between $26 billion and $40 billion, according to online estimates, YouTube has given us our first “strike” and suspended our ability to post videos on their site for 90 days. Why? One video we posted about the suppression of free speech in Canada is too politically incorrect!
Where does it stop? It’s time to draw our own line in the sand. . . .
Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free to charge a donation, Mon.-Thu., 9-5, or mail to AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774.
If you would like to talk to an AFP staff member about donating, please call 202-544-5977. You can talk directly to me by calling that number and the operator will gladly transfer the call.
Immigrants Will Overwhelm America
Whether legal or illegal, the U.S. cannot handle millions more immigrants. When it comes to illegal aliens, every year, 500,000 illegal aliens violate America’s borders. If you multiply 33 years times 500,000 people, that adds another 16.5 million people by 2050. Once this immigration storm hits, no one will be able to escape its consequences.
By Frosty Wooldridge
Every morning, noon, and night, you hear the weather report forecast in your specific area. Meteorologists warn you of approaching tornados, rainsqualls, or blizzards. They warn you of breezes or high winds. You know the temperatures in order to dress correctly or not to drive that day. Because of those forecasts, you make daily choices with knowledge and understanding. You protect yourself and your family.
Do you ever notice the evening news with cars piled up in 20-car crashes because they drove into a blinding snow storm? What about a cluster of 18-wheelers that drove into a fog bank only to create multiple deaths? As you look at the traffic standing still in your city, why did all those people drive their cars into such a gridlocked mess?
As you sit there watching the evening news, you wonder, “Why did so many people make such stupid choices? Why did they drive into a blinding snow storm? Why didn’t they pull over and park? Why didn’t they stay home?”
But what about your future, the future of your community, the future of your state, and ultimately, the future of your country—if you don’t get to see a forecast about a gathering storm across America in the form of endless immigration?
While no one can change the weather, each of us can change the future of our country by stopping the “immigration tsunami” bearing down on our 50 states.
As a forecaster, I can tell you this: Once this immigration storm hits, no one escapes its consequences.
The 1965 Immigration Reform Act drives this “perfect storm” bearing down on the U.S. At that time, Congress increased legal immigration to 1.2 million annually. That single act added 100 million people to the U.S. in 40 years. If allowed to continue, it will add 138 million more people within 33 years. We stand 28 million into that 138 million in 2017.
Let’s look at the numbers.
According to the Pew Research Center, NumbersUSA.org, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Fogel/Martin Population Projections, legal immigration is expected to jump the U.S. population by 100 million people, net gain, by 2045 or sooner.
That includes immigrants, their births, and their chain-migrated relatives. The other 38 million will be U.S. births by U.S. mothers at two children per woman on average. The baseline population was 300 million in 2006.
Dr. Steve Camarato of the Center for Immigration Studies tells us that 500,000 illegal aliens violate our borders annually. If you multiply 33 years times 500,000 people, that adds another 16.5 million people. That would take us from the projected 438 million to 454.5 million in 2050. You can find more from the Center for Immigration Studies at “CIS.org.”
That equates to doubling the size of our 40 most populated cities within the United States. This means New York City jumps from 8.3 million to 16.6 million, Los Angeles increases from 11 million to 22 million, Chicago from 5 million to 10 million, and on down the line.
Florida is expected to jump from 18 million to 36 million. Texas increases from 26 million to 36 million. California accelerates from 38 million to 58 million.
How do you water, feed, warm, transport, house, employ in an increasingly robotic world, and provide resources for in excess of another 154.5 million people?
With all the problems we face today—47 million Americans subsisting on food stamps, 8.7 million unemployed, our inner cities rotting into chaos, our air pollution rates exploding off the charts, our gridlock traffic immobilizing our cities, our water pollution in places like Flint, Mich. and dozens of other U.S. cities—how in the living daylights will we survive the first part of this storm?
My long-time colleague, Dr. Albert Bartlett, said, “Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted or advanced by further increases of population, locally, nationally or globally?” (Bartlett manages “AlBartlett.org,” which is his own website.)
The answer: Nothing will get better. Everything will get worse. No one will be immune. Everyone will suffer.
You can take action today by supporting new immigration initiatives sponsored by Washington. Also, you can join these organizations for free: NumbersUSA (1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 240, Arlington, Va. 22202), Federation for American Immigration Reform (25 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 330, Washington, D.C. 20001), and Carrying Capacity Network, Inc. (1629 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006). And, of course, get people to subscribe to AMERICAN FREE PRESS.
Frosty Wooldridge lives in Golden, Colo. He is a population, immigration, and environment specialist and has spoken at colleges, civic clubs, and conferences around the world on these topics. Woolridge has also biked across six continents.
Obama’s Parting Gift to You: A Ministry of Truth
Before leaving office on Jan. 20, President Barack Obama and the Democrats stuck Americans with a combination Christmas and going-away present that effectively creates a Ministry of Truth to police what constitutes news in this country. Notably missing from this new measure is who, exactly, is going to be defining what is true and what is false.
By John Tiffany
There’s a saying that evil and the devil never sleep. Thus, while the American people were celebrating the Christmas season and paying little attention to politics, secure in the knowledge that Donald Trump had been elected, a lame-duck Congress and President Barack Obama made their move, passing and signing into law a bill that will create an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
The budget-busting $611 billion 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has hidden deep within its pages a proviso known by various euphemisms such as the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 (H.R. 5181) or the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692).
Long before the flap about so-called “fake news”—meaning anything (such as the truth) not conforming to the government/mainstream media narratives—was drummed up, the writers of this anti-First Amendment legislation were planning to task the secretary of state with coordinating with the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” whose ostensible purpose is to “develop and disseminate” what are claimed to be “fact-based narratives” to counter the pesky truthers who have the effrontery to point out anomalies and holes in the establishment narratives.
Notably unanswered is the question of who determines what is “fact” and how they determine this. For example, for President George W. Bush it was a “fact” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In the end, it was clear to everyone the true facts were the opposite of the president’s “facts”—but by then the damage had been done.
The free speech-chilling rider was first introduced by Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and back in March by RINO Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Kinzinger is noted for saying he cannot support Donald Trump.
Portman complained: “Surprisingly, there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national-level development, integration, and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”
On Dec. 8, the proviso was quietly inserted into the Senate version of the NDAA. Obama signed it into law in the evening of Dec. 23—practically on Christmas Eve.
The bill also creates a grant program to give away taxpayer dollars to “NGOs, think tanks, civil society [whatever that means] and other experts outside government who are engaged in counterpropaganda-related work.”
In what is effectively a return to the Cold War, Obama and these solons claim “foreign disinformation and manipulation” threaten the world’s “security and stability.”
This legislation “does not bode well for independent media and has massive potential to be abused for political purposes,” commented the news and commentary website “21stCenturyWire.com.”
Germany’s boss, Angela Merkel, joined with Obama in calling for more censorship and news control.
As part of the same drive, we have already seen Facebook partnering with government-sponsored “fact checking” sites and algorithms being put in place to remove dissident news from social media feeds. The new law chips away at freedom in America.
This latest outrage comes scant weeks after the Defense Department was found to have hidden a January 2015 report showing how $125 billion could have been saved over a five-year period without any civilian layoffs or any reduction in military strength—information the Pentagon and military-industrial-banking complex do not want leaked to the taxpayers.
Such “lamestream media” as The Washington Post have already indoctrinated and primed the public to believe that anyone deviating from the official narrative is providing “fake news” and “Russian propaganda,” so that now the government can legally crack down on any media that questions the official line.
WHAT THE NDAA IS ALL ABOUT
SEN. ROB PORTMAN ON FOREIGN PROPAGANDA:
“Our enemies are using foreign propaganda and disinformation against us and our allies, and so far the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel.
“. . . But, today, the United States has taken a critical step towards confronting the extensive and destabilizing foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us by our enemies overseas.” —SEN. ROB PORTMAN
[AMERICAN FREE PRESS translation: Too much truth is getting out about the misdeeds of the U.S. government and something has to be done.—Ed.]
PORTMAN ON THE PURPOSE OF THE NDAA:
The Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act has this as its main goal, according to a press release on Portman’s Senate website:
“The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering the foreign propaganda and disinformation being wages [sic] against us and our allies by our enemies. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China as well as non-state actors.
“The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations by our enemies and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.”
[AMERICAN FREE PRESS translation: The government will accelerate distribution of its official propaganda narrative through compliant media outlets while at the same time crushing “fake news” outlets until the nexus between government and media is 100% complete. At the same time, the U.S. will expand even further its own spying and disinformation operations.—Ed.]
John Tiffany is AFP’s copy editor and lives in West Virginia.
Chemicals in Popular Herbicide Even Worse Than Killer Poison?
Frankenfood makers routinely test glyphosate, the primary ingredient in RoundUp, as a single agent and declare it safe. But that is deceptive because glyphosate is always combined with dangerous adjuvants. Glyphosate-based herbicides contain many other chemicals, which when mixed together are 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
By James Spounias
If the alliance between government and powerful business interests isn’t enough to give you an ulcer, try to wrap your head around two stories, published within days of each other, concerning the testing of glyphosate. This controversial herbicide is used in combination with adjuvants in finished products, notably RoundUp, made by agrichemical giant Monsanto.
Adjuvants are ingredients in a solution that usually facilitate or modify the action of the principal ingredient in the mixture.
The first story came out Nov. 11, stating that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it has suspended testing of glyphosate in foods, blaming differing test methods and laboratories.
The agency stated it may revisit testing in the future.
The second article, published two days later, on Nov. 13, reveals high levels of glyphosate have been discovered in popular foods, according to a report published by grassroots advocacy organization Food Democracy Now and the Detox Project, which commissioned an FDA-registered lab to conduct testing.
You read that correctly: The government cannot test glyphosate, but public interest groups can test—using the government’s labs.
If you believe the FDA is actually testing foods for high levels of pesticides and herbicides in a meaningful way, think again.
Even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) bluntly stated the FDA isn’t testing nearly enough in size and scope to matter, and that glyphosates weren’t even tested in 2014. The agency reported, “FDA tested less than one-tenth of 1% of imported shipments.”
The GAO also chided the FDA for not disclosing that it does not “test for several commonly used pesticides with an EPA established tolerance (the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that is allowed to remain on or in a food)—including glyphosate, the most used agricultural pesticide.”
The GAO’s criticism makes it clear that the dangers of pesticides and herbicides aren’t taken seriously by federal agencies. This is not because of omission or negligence.
The FDA only started testing for glyphosates in February 2016, after being criticized for not doing so—following the release of a damning report on glyphosate dangers by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which re-classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in March 2015.
The Obama Administration, falsely portrayed by the so-called rightwing as anti-business egghead environmentalists driving American corporations out of the U.S., is literally in bed with Big Agriculture on this issue.
The fact that the FDA announced it will no longer test for glyphosate just two days after Donald Trump was declared president-elect speaks to the fact that Big Agriculture’s power is fairly certain it will be business as usual under the new administration.
This writer will not hold his breath that foods will be tested properly under a Trump presidency any more than they were under Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter.
The second article headline—that shockingly high levels of glyphosate were found in commonly eaten foods—resulted from a substantial testing project done by Food Democracy Now.
Using sophisticated “gold standard” test methods at an FDA-registered laboratory, Food Democracy Now learned that, so far, alarming levels of glyphosate were found at levels that present significant risks according to the latest independent peer-reviewed science on glyphosate in General Mills’ Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran and Frosted Flakes, PepsiCo’s Doritos Cool Ranch,
Ritz Crackers, Nabisco’s Oreos, and Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips, as well as many other popular products.
“Frankly, such a high level of glyphosate contamination found in Cheerios, Doritos, Oreos and Stacy’s Pita Chips is alarming and should be a wake-up call for any parent trying to feed their children safe, healthy and non-toxic food,” said Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now.
How much glyphosate is “safe” for human consumption isn’t an easy question to answer, because credible, independent, peer-reviewed scientific evidence states that the levels of harm begin at the miniscule 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) level, while glyphosate industry-sponsored research dismisses this low number.
Food Democracy Now’s test revealed a whopping 1.125 ppb in the popular breakfast cereal Cheerios.
This latest evidence calls for a much lower allowable daily intake (ADI) to be set at 0.025 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight per day or “12 times lower than the ADI” currently set in Europe and 70 times lower than the level currently allowed by the EPA in the U.S.
“These results show that both the U.S. regulators and food companies have let down consumers in America. Independent science shows that glyphosate may be a hormone hacker at these real-life exposure levels found in the food products,” said Henry Rowlands, director of the Detox Project, an international organization dedicated to testing our food and our bodies for toxic hormone-hacking chemicals. “The safe level of glyphosate ingestion is simply unknown despite what the EPA and Monsanto would have everyone believe.”
There’s another issue not yet addressed by the government or Food Democracy Now: The adjuvants used in conjunction with glyphosate are not being tested. Combining these chemicals into a toxic cocktail could make the witch’s brew even more dangerous than glyphosate alone.
This is not to criticize Food Democracy Now, which has taken on the Herculean task of educating the public on the dangers of glyphosate and clearly faces roadblocks and financial impediments to test every chemical used in finished products. Public health organizations should not have to do the job of federal agencies, paid with taxpayer dollars to do so.
The adjuvants, however, make glyphosate much more dangerous to health and are conveniently ignored by the establishment, which relies on “corporate studies” that only look at glyphosate as a sole ingredient.
In the real world, the corporate-sponsored test-tube assurances of isolated glyphosate safety are bunk, because all commercial products using glyphosate have additives. These are often dangerous enough on their own, but combined with glyphosate they can be much worse.
“GMwatch.org” quoted Dr. Robin Mesnage of the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at Kings College in London in 2015 who offered evidence for the statement that RoundUp is 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone.
Mesnage stated: “Glyphosate is everywhere throughout our food chain—in our food and water. The lack of data on toxicity of glyphosate is not proof of safety and these herbicides cannot be considered safe without proper testing.
We know RoundUp, the commercial name of glyphosate-based herbicides, contains many other chemicals, which when mixed together are 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate on its own.”
If we look at the “big picture” of pollutants, such as glyphosate and other herbicides, fluoridated water, hydrogenated vegetable oils, high-fructose corn syrup, and vaccines, to name a few, we get the idea that we are indeed left victim to assaults protected by the powers that be and that attempts to do the right thing are suppressed by this same cabal.
People take to the streets over which selected puppet gets to rule, but it is time that all, no matter color, creed, religion or political persuasion, join together to demand clean food, water, and air and restoration from damage done by the powers that be.
James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine.
Was This an Assassination Attempt on Trump or Just a Dirty Trick?
The dirty tricksters were up to their old games this weekend when a man at a Trump rally forced an incident that nearly shut down the political gathering. What the dirty tricksters failed to realize was that the name of this supposedly innocent man showed up multiple times in documents leaked by WikiLeaks on its website.
By Sophia Meyer
The latest disruption at a Donald Trump campaign rally, this time in Reno, Nev. where the Republican presidential nominee was speaking on Nov. 4, turned particularly dramatic when Secret Service protective agents shrouded the candidate as they rushed him off-stage to safety. Some people went so far as to call it an assassination attempt on the billionaire presidential candidate, but the truth may be even more bizarre.
Austyn Crites—who has been a registered Republican since 2011, according to “Heavy.org,” but now supports Hillary Clinton—was at the front of the large crowd when he raised a “Republicans Against Trump” sign over his head.
CNN reports a Secret Service statement said an unidentified person shouted “gun” as Crites was being tackled by the crowd. Law enforcement officers rushed in and carried him away.
Crites told the media that law enforcement “saved” him from the violent crowd, and on Saturday told a Guardian reporter of his harrowing few seconds of fame, “I knew I could die at that moment.”
Trump returned to the stage in about five minutes to finish his speech. He later tweeted his appreciation to law enforcement and said, “Nothing will stop us—we will make America great again!”
No gun was found either on Crites or in a search of the surrounding area, and Crites was released without charges a short time later.
He then wrote on his now-defunct Facebook page, in part, “I have NO connection with the Clinton campaign . . .” and continued, “. . . we cannot allow a fascist/dictator to take our beloved freedoms to simply boost his ego and ‘get back’ at anyone who disagrees. Take what happened to me tonight as a classic example of dictator incitement of violence—against your own Republican brother with a stupid sign.”
Sounds innocent enough. After all, he was just holding “a stupid sign.”
But intrepid investigators almost immediately uncovered information about Crites that should cause a questioning mind to wonder which camp of dirty tricksters he may have been working for.
First, Crites’s name shows up in the WikiLeaks Global Intelligence Files, which consist of “over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered ‘global intelligence’ company Stratfor . . ..” dated between 2004 and 2011. Austyn Crites, it turns out, has a long and sordid history with Stratfor, as his name appears seven times in those emails.
WikiLeaks explains the significance of the Stratfor emails as revealing “the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques, and psychological methods.”
“ActivistPost.com” notes, “When you put this all together, it’s pretty hard not to think about the Project Veritas videos.” These undercover videos “allegedly showed Democratic operatives planting people to incite violence at Trump rallies.”
ABC News is reporting today, Nov. 7, a man has come forward claiming that he responded to a Craigslist ad and “was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills.” Paul Horner, 37, continued, “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’.”
And while the Clinton campaign originally denied the allegations, when Trump confronted Mrs. Clinton on the matter during the final presidential debate she remained silent, neither confirming or denying it.
Was Crites simply holding “a stupid sign” or was he doing the dirty work of behind-the-scenes powerbrokers intent on influencing this presidential election?
The establishment elites are deathly afraid of the significance of electing someone like Trump and what it will mean for their hold on power. As a result, they have stopped at nothing to discredit Trump and, more importantly, the populist revolution he has inspired.
With only one day to go before the election, the Republican and Democrat appear to be neck and neck. But should Trump lose in key states like Nevada or Pennsylvania, he does not stand a chance.
Originally from the Midwest, Sophia Meyer is a freelance writer and editor, small farmer, and avid gardener now living on Florida’s sunny east coast.