Trump Should Appoint Special Prosecutor for Leaks

When President Donald Trump returns to Washington from his Mideast trip, he should immediately appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Obama holdovers who have been leaking secret information to the press for the purpose of embarrassing and hamstringing his administration.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Who is the real threat to the national security? Is it President Trump who shared with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov the intelligence that ISIS was developing laptop bombs to put aboard airliners? Or is it The Washington Post that ferreted out and published this code-word intelligence, and splashed the details on its front page, alerting the world, and ISIS, to what we knew.

Trump has the authority to declassify security secrets. And in sharing that intel with the Russians, who have had airliners taken down by bombs, he was trying to restore a relationship.

On fighting Islamist terror, we and the Russians agree.

Five years ago, Russia alerted us that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had become a violent radical Islamist. That was a year and a half before Tsarnaev carried out the Boston Marathon bombing.

But upon what authority did The Washington Post reveal code-word intelligence secrets? Where in the Constitution or U.S. law did the Post get the right to reveal state secrets every U.S. citizen is duty bound to protect?

The source of this top secret laptop-bomb leak that the Post published had to be someone in the intel community who was violating an oath that he had sworn to protect U.S. secrets, and committing a felony by leaking that secret.

Those who leaked this to hurt Trump, and those who published this in the belief it would hurt Trump, sees themselves as the “Resistance”—like the French Resistance to Vichy in World War II.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

And they seemingly see themselves as above the laws that bind the rest of us.

“Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?” asked the headline on the editorial in The New York Times.

One wonders: Are these people oblivious to their own past?

In 1971, The New York Times published a hoard of secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson years on Vietnam. Editors spent months arranging them to convince the public it had been lied into a war that the Times itself had supported, but had turned against.

Purpose of publication: Damage and discredit the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was commander in chief. This was tantamount to treason in wartime.

When Nixon went to the Supreme Court to halt publication of “the Pentagon Papers” until we could review them to ensure that sources and methods were not being compromised, the White House was castigated for failing to understand the First Amendment.

And for colluding with the thieves that stole them, and for publishing the secret documents, the Times won a Pulitzer.

Forty years ago, the Post also won a Pulitzer—for Watergate.

The indispensable source of its stories was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who repeatedly violated his oath and broke the law by leaking the contents of confidential FBI interviews and grand jury testimony.

Felt, “Deep Throat,” was a serial felon. He could have spent 10 years in a federal penitentiary had his identity been revealed. But to protect him from being prosecuted and sent to prison, and to protect themselves from the public knowing their scoops were handed to them by a corrupt FBI agent, the Post kept Felt’s identity secret for 30 years. Yet, their motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Which brings us to the point.

The adversary press asserts in its actions a right to collude with and shelter disloyal and dishonorable officials who violate our laws by leaking secrets that they are sworn to protect.

Why do these officials become criminals, and why do the mainstream media protect them?

Because this seedy bargain is the best way to advance their common interests.

The media get the stolen goods to damage Trump. Anti-Trump officials get their egos massaged, their agendas advanced and their identities protected.

This is the corrupt bargain the Beltway press has on offer.

For the media, bringing down Trump is also good for business. TV ratings of anti-Trump media are soaring. The “failing New York Times” has seen a surge in circulation. The Pulitzers are beckoning.

And bringing down a president is exhilarating. As Ben Bradlee reportedly said during the Iran-Contra scandal that was wounding President Reagan, “We haven’t had this much fun since Watergate.”

When Nixon was brought down, North Vietnam launched a spring offensive that overran the South, and led to concentration camps and mass executions of our allies, South Vietnamese boat people perishing by the thousands in the South China Sea, and a holocaust in Cambodia.

When Trump gets home from his trip, he should direct Justice to establish an office inside the FBI to investigate all illegal leaks since his election and all security leaks that are de facto felonies, and name a special prosecutor to head up the investigation.

Then he should order that prosecutor to determine if any Trump associates, picked up by normal security surveillance, were unmasked, and had their names and conversations spread through the intel community, on the orders of Susan Rice and Barack Obama, to seed the bureaucracy to sabotage the Trump presidency before it began.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Texas Governor Bans Sanctuary Cities, Corporate Owned Roads

Texas’s governor recently signed two outstanding bills passed by the Republican state Congress that officially ban so-called sanctuary cities and corporate ownership of roads.

By Mark Anderson

Texas is proving itself to be a national trailblazer in confronting wide-ranging controversial issues and often leading rather than following the federal government. Two of the most recent cases include Gov. Greg Abbott signing a bill that bans “sanctuary cities” in the Lone Star State, and Abbott and the Republican-led legislature coming out against building new privately run toll roads.

On May 7, Abbott signed legislation that allows local police to ask about a person’s immigration status and threatens local law enforcement with penalties, including jail time, if they declare themselves sanctuary cities by refusing to cooperate with federal authorities in carrying out one of the most fundamental tasks of government: securing the borders with neighboring nations.

“Let’s face it, the reason why so many people come to America is because we are a nation of laws, and Texas is doing its part to keep it that way,” Abbott remarked.

The first-term Republican governor signed the anti-sanctuary legislation over the usual intense opposition from so-called immigrant-rights groups and Democrats. Those factions allege that the new law echoes Arizona’s 2010 immigration crackdown, which sparked an inflated national controversy and frivolous lawsuits.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The Arizona law required police to try to determine the immigration status of people during routine stops, but the Texas bill doesn’t actually instruct officers to ask. It does allow police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detain, including those arrested for a crime or even those stopped for traffic violations. Local officials also must comply with federal requests to hold criminal suspects for possible deportation.

Texas doesn’t have any official self-declared “sanctuary” cities for illegal immigrants, but several municipal officials have considered taking such a stance. For example, Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, whose jurisdiction includes liberal-leaning Austin, at first refused to honor federal detainer requests if the suspects hadn’t been arrested for immigration offenses or serious crimes such as murder. Sheriff Hernandez backed down, however, after Abbott cut county funding.

The bill cleared a final hurdle in the Republican-controlled legislature over objections from Democrats and immigrant-rights supporters who’ve often packed the Capitol in Austin. According to state Republicans, this bill is needed to ensure that those running local jails honor requests from federal officials to keep dangerous illegal-immigrant offenders behind bars.

OTHER BOLD MOVE

In the past, AFP has reported on Spanish-based Cintra trying to buy up highway rights-of-way across the country. Texas, however, tends to lead the way in pushing back at corporate money grabs.

Texas taxpayers just got some relief due to a bipartisan effort to defeat the expansion of private toll roads in the state. On May 5, a bill for the expansion of private ownership of roads was defeated, 79-51, in the state House. A majority of Democrats as well as Republicans oppose new Texas toll roads.

“Governor Greg Abbott promised to fix Texas roads without new tolls or debt, and the Texas House delivered on that promise . . . by killing Rep. Larry Phillips’s H.B. 2861,” remarked Terri Hall, founder and director of Texans for Toll Free Highways.

Ms. Hall added, “A bipartisan coalition swept the [former governor] Rick Perry-era of toll roads aside, and . . . we officially started the Abbott era that firmly opposes new toll roads, especially privatized toll roads that give an exclusive right to a single company to extract the highest possible toll from the traveling public.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




Get the Latest Issue of AFP Free!

Click here to get a PDF version of the latest issue of AFP.




Mistrial: Protesters Get Off But FBI Informant Found Guilty

Last week, the jury in the first of three trials of supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy ended in a hung jury for four of the six defendants. Perhaps most shocking in the case was one of the two found guilty of multiple charges had been a paid FBI informant.

By Mark Anderson

LAS VEGAS, Nevada—In the three-part, landmark case that arose from the 2014 standoff near Bunkerville, Nev. between multiple federal agencies and supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy, the jury deadlocked on April 24, forcing U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro to declare a mistrial. Federal prosecutors were unable to secure convictions for four of the six defendants in the first of three trials. Shockingly, one of the two men convicted had been an FBI informant for years. His cover was blown during trial testimony.

The four defendants who escaped conviction were Richard Lovelien, Eric Parker, O. Scott Drexler, and Steven Stewart. The 12-member jury fell far short of convicting these four, according to defense lawyers.

The jury found two defendants in the opening trial—Todd Engel and Gregory Burleson—guilty of some charges, with Burleson bearing the brunt. During testimony, FBI agents said Burleson was an informant.

Engel was charged with obstruction of justice and using interstate commerce to commit extortion. Engel could possibly be sentenced to two years in prison, though it’s likely he’ll get considerable credit for time already served.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The jury found Burleson guilty of multiple charges, including using a firearm to assault federal officers, interfering with federal officers, and extortion. The New American reports that Burleson of Phoenix, Ariz. has been a paid informant for the FBI for years, so don’t expect the provocateur to see the inside of a jail cell.

It is standard operating procedure for the FBI to send in informants to escalate violence in an effort to trump up conspiracy charges. Since some of the defendants in the Nevada cases were cleared earlier this year in Portland federal court of any wrongdoing for their part in the Oregon occupation-protest that ended in early 2016, the federal government is determined to secure convictions in a future trial. A staffer in the dockets department of the U.S. to Judge Navarro both confirmed that Lovelien, Parker, Drexler, and Stewart will be retried starting June 26.

Liberty Stickers

That is the same date listed in the docket for the second trial, in which longtime rancher Cliven Bundy and two of his sons, Ryan and Ammon, along with Ryan Payne and Internet radio host Pete Santilli, are the defendants. It’s expected to be an especially high-profile affair in which the bedrock fundamentals of federal land jurisdiction and control ought to be rigorously debated.

The third and final trial, involving Bundy’s sons Mel and Dave, along with Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Brian Cavalier, Jason Woods, and Micah McGuire, is expected to begin sometime in the fall.

The defendants in all three trials are being tried for their part in supporting Bundy in the now-legendary April 2014 standoff between armed federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents and the elder Bundy, four of the Bundy sons, and a host of supporters.

When the BLM showed up to impound hundreds of Bundy’s cattle for alleged unpaid grazing fees on public lands, supporters traveled to southern Nevada, near Bunkerville, to stand with Bundy in protest of federal land policies. The standoff was dubbed “The Battle of Bunkerville,” though not a single shot was fired.

Still, the federal government, which has been laboring to make its case that those who gathered with the elder Bundy pointed their weapons at heavily armed federal officers in a “threatening” manner, seeks to send all the defendants to prison—for life, if possible.

The defense maintains that Bundy’s supporters showed up only to exercise their First and Second Amendment rights in protest of BLM policies.

Assessing the situation, Roger Roots, an author and legal expert who attended nearly every day of the first trial, told AMERICAN FREE PRESS: “Maybe you can’t call this [deadlocked jury] a victory for the Bundy side. But the government’s ‘stock’ went down in this thing. And the feds, including the judge, are under a lot of pressure to try and provide speedy trials.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




Can We Get the Truth About a Possible North Korea Showdown?

There is so much fake news circulating about North Korea, it’s hard to know what’s really the truth. Is North Korea’s Kim Jung-Un really interested in nuking the U.S.? Will China and Russia rally behind the U.S. military if the U.S. attacks? You may be surprised when you read Dr. Johnson’s commentary below.

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

The U.S. Navy is making its way to Korean waters. Stealth bombers are now on alert in South Korea and Japan. If you believe the mainstream media, this is all because North Korea is threatening the world with nuclear annihilation. But what is the truth, and who is really to blame for ratcheting up tensions in Asia?

Regardless of one’s views on Pyongyang, the North Koreans have not sought to conquer anyone and seek nothing but to be left alone. The North Korean military has been dug in and waiting for a Southern or American attack for decades. Its population is used to drills and civil defense procedures to fight such an attack.

North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006. However, it seeks to be a nuclear power to deter attacks from the much larger American, Japanese, and Southern forces.

In October 2016, North Korea made this principle clear. To speak of Kim Jong-Un’s “threats” against the U.S. while the U.S. engages in almost monthly military exercises against North Korea is absurd and masks a larger agenda.

Contrary to media myths, North Korea has never stated it would use nuclear weapons first. They have said they would use nuclear weapons only in the case of foreign attack. The only chance of a nuclear war in Korea is because of American provocations. The Chinese have echoed this as well.

The U.S. has said it will attack the North if a weapons test were carried out, but many such tests have taken place in the North in the past. Regardless, this is not legal grounds for a preemptive military strike, let alone a nuclear one.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The incessant American press mantra that China and North Korea are on the verge of becoming enemies is also false. The opposite—as usual—is the case.

Decades of nuclear tests have not harmed Pyongyang-Peking relations. China has never, in any form, said it will bomb Korea’s nuclear facilities. In fact, China’s ambassador to the UN, Liu Jieyi, blamed the U.S. for the escalation in the region.

Importantly, China has no incentive to see an American victory in Asia against a friendly power. It was only a few months ago that Washington was trying to start another war, this time against China, in the South China Sea. To suggest that China will break with a long-time ally in favor of U.S. imperialism is not just arrogant; it is grossly naive.

So what is the truth about North Korea?

There is no doubt the West is peddling fabrications about North Korea. That is because much of the information reaching the public comes from defectors, who have every reason to exaggerate. In 2014, The Guardian in the UK exposed many defector stories as false.

For example, Shin Dong-hyuk travels around the world, lecturing about the “death camps” in North Korea, yet he speaks with a pronounced Southern accent. His book and various videos have been exposed as frauds. Others, who supposedly were experimented on in North Korea before fleeing for their lives, have also been revealed to be telling tall tales.

It is this false information that is used to justify keeping American troops in South Korea as well as running exercises meant to train assassins to murder the North Korean head of state.

It is worth noting that Russian reports do not show North Korea as a starving, totalitarian country. According to Russian news outlets, the poverty that does exist there is largely due to North Korea’s need to divert over 50% of its budget to the military. Long-time sanctions on the country also depress its economy.

A revitalized Russia under Vladimir Putin has modernized portions of the North, while China supplies much of its energy needs. In 2014, Russia announced $25 billion in investment projects in the North.

There is now even a burgeoning middle class, and the automotive market has taken off.

North Korea is not to be underestimated. Russian and NATO analysis reported as late as December of last year that Pyongyang’s military technology is better than previously thought.

The South far exceeds the North in military technology, but South Korea remains a deeply divided society. In the event of war, South Korean forces would come under American, not Korean, command. South Koreans, as their history of anti-American rioting have shown, might not be willing to kill fellow Koreans for American interests.

The very large North Korean forces have a great superiority in tanks, artillery pieces, and infantry. The North has almost 100 submarines, while the South has just over 20.

As for aircraft, the North and South are equal in terms of numbers, but the quality certainly favors the South.

Outside of nuclear weapons, the North has pioneered the development of “midget submarines,” very hard to detect, that can be produced in large numbers and can swarm enemy ships. Further, two very dangerous artillery pieces in the North Korean arsenal are the 170mm Koksan howitzers and MRL-240 rocket launchers. The KN-2 Toksa is a fairly advanced ballistic missile system taken from the Russian SS-21 class.

Compare that to the U.S. military, which is overstretched and involved in several continents. The U.S. has been building up forces in the Baltics and Romania, and now is seeking to move into Syria.

In 2008, North Korea sought to end provocative military drills. Despite this, in March 2017, the U.S. and South Korea performed military exercises using simulated nuclear weapons against the North. The U.S. and South Korea also engaged in their largest military exercise yet, and the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier team has now been diverted to the Sea of Japan.

In March, China offered a deal by which the North would end all nuclear tests in exchange for the complete cessation of drills by the Americans and the South. It was angrily rejected by Washington.

President Donald Trump’s secretary of defense, Gen. James Mattis, a fervent neocon, stated, “We are working diplomatically, including with those that we might be able to enlist in this effort to get North Korea under control.”

Immediately after this statement, he attacked Russia, saying, “[Russia’s] violations of international law are now a matter of record.” This was in reference to Crimea. He then trailed off, saying they shouldn’t be “mucking around inside other people’s elections and that sort of thing.”

North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Han Song Ryol said the Trump administration has been the most provocative of any in recent memory.

Han calls the nuclear weapons program a “self defense” system against a militarily superior West and South.  He reiterated that there is no desire for a preemptive strike against the U.S., but the American media is saying otherwise.

Matthew Raphael Johnson is an author and historian whose area of special expertise is Slavic studies. He is also an acknowledged authority on the history of nationalism and nationalist movements. He is the author of Russian Populist, a book detailing the political thought of Vladimir Putin.




Trump Signs ‘Buy American, Hire American’ Order

President Donald Trump just signed an executive order encouraging businesses in the U.S. to put American workers first and hire them before foreign applicants.

By Mark Anderson

Donald Trump, in one of his first acts as president, pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now he has taken another action that puts Americans and their economic destiny first. On April 18, the president traveled to Kenosha, Wisc., to visit the headquarters of American tool manufacturer Snap-on Inc. While there, he signed an executive order dubbed “Buy American, Hire American.”

The new executive order, among other things, directs the Labor, Justice, Homeland Security, and State departments “to propose new rules to prevent immigration fraud and abuse,” according to a Business Insider article. Those departments are expected to be tasked with recommending necessary changes so that H-1B employment visas are awarded only to “the most skilled or highest-paid applicants,” not to less-skilled classes of workers representing the cheap labor that exerts downward pressure on wages, a common criticism of the existing program.

Trump’s order is also reportedly designed to help strengthen requirements that American-made products be used in certain grant-funded federal transportation and construction projects. That’s timely, considering Trump wants to spend $1 trillion on badly needed nationwide infrastructure projects.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is expected to review “how to close loopholes in enforcing the existing rules.” He will review rule waivers tucked away in free-trade agreements that are notoriously anti-labor. If it’s determined that the waivers do not benefit the U.S., administration officials are saying, the rules will be renegotiated or revoked.

Via a lottery approach, approximately 85,000 H-1B visas are distributed annually. Many go to technology companies, which often claim the U.S. has a shortage of skilled technology workers.

However, American technology employees have been laid off nationwide, replaced by H-1B visa holders. Rubbing salt in the wound, these laid-off workers are in some cases required to train their replacements or lose severance packages.

Trump’s executive order appears to be a move in the right direction, fulfilling his pledge to rework the economy toward “made in USA by American workers,” but there are lingering concerns. H-1B critic Ronil Hira, a Howard University public policy professor, said of Trump’s new order, “It’s not as aggressive as it needs to be.”

On Capitol Hill, a bill by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would require companies seeking H-1B visas to first make a good-faith effort to hire Americans, something members of Congress have considered previously, with unimpressive results.

Readers are asked to call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 225-3121 and demand that employment-visa changes must have teeth and truly put Americans first.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




‘Friendly Skies’ Look Much Like America’s Police State

Sadly, what happened to an Asian doctor on a United commercial jetliner has fast become the norm in the United States, where local, state, and federal law enforcement regularly side with the government and corporations and routinely abuse citizens.

By Sophia Meyer

Dr. David Dao was seated on United Flight 3411 Sunday night, prepared to fly from Chicago to Louisville on the last leg of an exhausting 24-hour journey. He was going back to work, with patients to see the next morning at 8.

When notified he was had been computer-selected to give his seat to a United employee needing to get to work in Louisville, Dao refused. After United employees were unsuccessful in convincing him to disembark, three Chicago Aviation Department security officers boarded the plane to remove Dao—willingly or not.

Police State Books John Whitehead

In a passenger’s video recording of the incident, Dao can be heard telling the officers: “I’m not going. I’m a physician. I have to work tomorrow at 8.” An officer threatens, “We’ll have to drag you off,” to which Dao responds, “Well then you can drag me. . . . I’m not going. I’m staying right here,” and then says, “I’d rather go to jail.”

Then, in what The Atlantic calls, “the ‘re-accommodation’ heard ’round the world,” the screaming Dao “was ripped out of his seat by uniformed officers and dragged down the aisle on his back like carry-on luggage, as several horrified passengers captured video footage of his bloodied face on their phones.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Passengers can be heard expressing disbelief and disgust as he’s dragged away. “Hey, hey, hey, come on! Now you’ve busted his lip.” “Oh, my God! Look what you did to him! This is horrible!” And, sarcastically, “Good work. Way to go.”

The officers have been “placed on indefinite leave,” according to the Chicago Department of Aviation, which acknowledged the situation was not handled “in accordance with our standard operating procedure.”

It required three attempts for United CEO Oscar Munoz to apologize to Dao, his family, and the other passengers for the police-state tactics used aboard his plane. Finally—three days and three attempts later, and only after United stock had lost $255 million—Munoz told ABC News on Wednesday, “probably the word shame comes to mind,” in describing how he felt upon watching the video showing the handcuffed passenger being literally dragged off his plane. “It was a system failure,” he continued, blaming United’s policies, that do not enable employees to use “common sense.”

Munoz had initially outraged the public when he tweeted, “We apologize for the overbook situation,” and then in a statement blamed the victim: Dao, he said, had “raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions” and “became more and more disruptive and belligerent.”

Now, similar to what often follows such police-state violence, USA Today reports “Videos from United Airlines flight incident may violate rules. . . . [P] assengers were in violation of United’s policies and could face legal repercussions in civil court or be barred from future United flights.”

If this series of events sounds familiar, perhaps it’s because time and again, innocent victims of police-state violence in America—like the young man shot to death in his own apartment while playing video games at 1:30 a.m. when police came searching for someone else, as reported by AFP in Issue 15 & 16, 2017—have their reputations smeared by the agencies and media, are themselves blamed for agency misconduct, and onlookers who document the carnage are themselves threatened and even arrested.

China’s version of Twitter, Sina Weibo, has been abuzz with the news, since Dao is of Asian descent. Ironically, one commenter noted United’s treatment of him is “a perfect illustration” of human rights in the United States.

Indeed, whether on land or in the sky, and whether such violent tactics are carried out by representatives of local law enforcement, federal agencies like the DEA, ICE or IRS, or remote drone controllers targeting unarmed American citizens for murder, the onus is focused on those who document such police-state tactics rather than on the criminals carrying them out.

In addition to a growing “Boycott United” sentiment, Dao has filed a lawsuit and the company’s stock has plummeted $1.4 billion as of this writing. Surely, one would assume, the company immediately changed its policies.

Au contraire!

A mere two days after Dao’s mistreatment, United first-class passenger Geoff Fearns was threatened with handcuffs if he did not give up his $1,000 bought-and-paid-for full-fare seat so that a last-minute, “higher-priority” traveler could have it. When Fearns stood his ground and refused to leave the plane, United finally “compromised” and moved him to a seat in economy class.

Once home, Fearns wrote Munoz requesting a full refund and a $25,000 donation from United to the charity of his choice for his mistreatment.

A week later, United’s “corporate customer care specialist” instead offered Fearns a refund of the difference between his first-class ticket price and economy fare as well as a $500 credit toward future travel on United.

When asked if he’ll ever “fly the friendly skies” again, Fearns laughed, “Are you kidding?”

Originally from the Midwest, Sophia Meyer is a freelance writer and editor and avid gardener now living on Florida’s Treasure Coast.




Washington’s Deception Is Aimed at Russia, Vladimir Putin

Sane Americans are wondering what’s going on in Washington. Did President Donald Trump really cave to pressure from the deep state? Why would he order missile strikes against the Syrian military when he promised on the campaign trail that he would not get the U.S. involved in the civil war in Syria? Above, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson walks with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov ahead of their bilateral meeting at the Osobnyak Guest House in Moscow, Russia on April 12, 2017.

By Paul Craig Roberts

According to a report on RT, Secretary of State Tillerson has on CBS backed away from his previously reported aggressive rhetoric reported by the presstitutes against Russia and Syria.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

According to the RT report, Tillerson said that Washington’s plan is to defeat ISIS, not to bring regime change to Syria. It is up to the Syrian people, Tillerson reportedly said, to choose their own president. “We’ve seen what violent regime change looks like in Libya and the kind of chaos that can be unleashed and indeed the kind of misery that it enacts on its own people,” he said on CBS. “I think we have to learn the lessons of the past,” he emphasized on ABC, adding, “Any time you go on and have a violent change at the top, it is very difficult to create the conditions for stability longer term.”

If the report is correct, it could either be good news or another Washington deception in advance of Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, the purpose of which will be to bring the Russian government into Washington’s orbit and an agreement to replace Assad with an American vassal.

Gideon Elite book cover

Perhaps the Russian government will keep in mind Tillerson’s revealing statement that the message the US sent with its illegal, war crime, unprovoked attack on Syria “is that the violation of international norms . . . will no longer be tolerated.”

Of course, who is the violator of “international norms”? No one but Washington (and Israel). Washington is the greatest violator of “international norms” in modern history. Washington has invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, organized the destruction of Libya and Somalia, conducted attacks on Pakistan and Yemen, and organized a coup against the democratically elected government in Ukraine.

Only Washington has a list of crimes this long. And we can add to it Honduras, Brazil, Argentina, and in the works, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

If Russia falls into Washington’s trap of deception, Russia will be destroyed.

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of The Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for BusinessWeek, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has held many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’s latest books are How AMERICA Was LOST: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State and The NEOCONSERVATIVE THREAT to WORLD ORDER: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony.




Donald Trump’s Tomahawk Attack on Syria Is An Absurdity

Launching 60 cruise missiles against the Syrian government before an independent investigation can prove who exactly was behind the gas attack in Syria was foolish and played into the hands of the global warmongers.

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

President Donald Trump threw away a great deal of support by ordering a cruise missile attack on Syria April 7. Obviously, Assad would have had no interest in using internationally banned chemical weapons in a war that he has already won, well aware of the inevitable American response.

The attack on Sharat air base in Homs province was launched from U.S. ships in the Mediterranean. Three Syrian soldiers were killed, and the base was destroyed.

Worst of all, ISIS and other radical groups now have a new lease on life thanks to Trump buying into the international warmongers’ desire to topple the stable government in Syria.

ISIS Is Us Book cover

One need not be a military strategist to realize that either the Syrian government is unhinged or the original chemical attack story was a lie.

The U.S. government warned the Russian military personnel at the air base prior to launching cruise missiles, in order to avoid a more serious incident, but Russia has still taken this as an act of war. Russian leader Vladimir Putin made the obvious statement that the attack was a form of unwarranted aggression.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that no evidence was ever offered that the Syrians would have made such an impulsive move in a war they had already won. The Foreign Ministry in Moscow stated:

The very presence of U.S. troops and other countries in Syria without the consent of the government or the UN Security Council is a blatant, explicit, and unwarranted violation of international law. If before it was due to the task of combating terrorism, now it is an attack on Syria proper. U.S. actions taken today will further destroy the Russian-American relationship.

In 2013, both Russia and the U.S. came to the conclusion, after substantial inspections were conducted, that Syria did not possess chemical weapons. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, attached to the UN, was in charge of the inspections.

The pro-U.S. Iraqi puppet government has confirmed that the terrorists alone possessed these weapons.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

To the extent any gas was released, it was because the Syrian Air Force bombed a weapons depot that contained chemical weapons. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated:

In recent years, the organization [for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] has inspected almost all the objects that were or could be related to the military-chemical program in Syria. As for Idlib, terrorists were engaged in the production of toxic substances that they stuffed into roadside bombs for use in Syria and Iraq. . . They turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons by terrorists in Iraq, as officially reported by [the pro-American government in] Baghdad. They dismiss the application documents of logged chemical weapons by terrorists in Aleppo. . . . There is no doubt that the U.S. military action is an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul, where as a result of actions, including the U.S.-led coalition, killing hundreds of civilians and the growing humanitarian catastrophe (April 7, translation mine).

Questions about the alleged attacks abound. Feras Karam, an anti-Assad journalist, wrote on April 3 of his upcoming campaign to cover Syrian airstrikes on rebel-held villages and the use of chemical weapons, and said chlorine gas would be used. Further, Dr. Shajul Islam, a physician working in Khan Sheikhoun where the alleged gas attacks occurred, reportedly received shipments of gas masks several days earlier. Pictures have emerged showing volunteer rescue workers, the Syrian “White Helmets,” handling corpses allegedly from the attack without the protective gear required by normal protocol, because sarin easily penetrates the skin. It kills by breaking the contact between the brain and the lungs, rendering the victim unable to breathe.

This author claims no expertise in military aviation, but the consensus seems to be that Russian SU-22 jets’ custom bombs cannot be filled with any chemical weapons, as they are fully stuffed with their own explosives. The mechanism required to make the dormant gas functional is large and can only fit into a few types of warheads. However, the jets that allegedly gassed this area were SU-22s, flown by Syrian pilots.

ISIS is known to have used gas in the past, though far from the only ones to do so. The Daily Mail has obtained video showing experiments with gas being conducted on rebel bases throughout Syria. Even worse for the Americans, the CIA-controlled “Voice of America” has admitted that Jaysh al-Islam, the coalition of Islamist and Salafist units involved in the Syrian civil war, previously used chemical agents against Kurds in Aleppo. Therefore, as the Syrians handed over any old stores of chemical weapons to the UN in 2013, the rebels increased their stockpiles.

The most damning piece of evidence against the System’s view is that, just a week ago, the American government officially stated that “regime change” was no longer an option. Then, the gas attack occurs on a town that could have been cleared out easily by ground forces.

Assad has won this war, and is now focused on rebuilding internally and externally. To use gas at this juncture goes against all logic.

Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson is a writer and lives in Pennsylvania.




McCain, Graham ‘Furious’ as White House Changes Course on Syria, Assad

According to reports, two warmongering U.S. senators are “furious” that the White House has changed policy in Syria and wants the Syrians themselves to decide their own future rather than have it imposed upon them by the West.

By Roland Smith

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the legislators from Arizona and South Carolina, are reportedly fuming mad that the U.S. is no longer seeking to overthrow Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Instead, the White House’s official policy is to let the Syrian people decide their own fate.

On April 30, U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the White House’s “priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out.”

The next day, White House press spokesman Sean Spicer told the press corps: “We believe that there’s a need to de-escalate violence and to have a political process through which Syrians will decide their own political future . . . .”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Incredibly, despite this good news, McCain and Graham were reportedly “furious” that the U.S. is changing course.

For a number of years now, the U.S. has been funding and arming radical terrorists in Syria and Iraq in an insane attempt to overthrow the stable government of Syria.

Apparently, McCain and Graham have wanted to do to Syria what was done to Libya in 2011. That year, Western powers bombed Libya and funded and armed radical groups. Ultimately, this  led to the the brutal, bloody assassination of former Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi on Oct. 20, 2011. Graphic video of the assassination can be seen online by clicking here.

The two warmongering senators have never met a war they didn’t like—even when it is not in the interests of the U.S. While McCain was in Vietnam as a pilot, Graham, who was in the military, never saw any combat. As a pencil pusher, Graham did paperwork in the U.S. for soldiers who were being shipped off to wars in the Middle East.

Roland Smith is a writer and lives in Washington, D.C.




ACLU Amassing Army to Take Down President Donald Trump

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

By Dave Gahary

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

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

Liberty Stickers

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

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

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

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

People Power’s website states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that mean ACLU admits it is a terrorist organization?

Dave Gahary writes exclusively for American Free Press.




Is Putin the ‘Preeminent Statesman’ of Our Times?

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

By Patrick J. Buchanan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the old question arises: Who owns the future?

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

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

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



American Free Press Is Under Attack!

Dear American Free Press supporter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the plot thickens . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let’s do a little math . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• AFP actually checks facts before running with a story?

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

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

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

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

But guess what?

THAT’S NOT GOING  TO HAPPEN!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can’t let that happen!

Please click here to make a donation.

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

Thank you from the bottom of my heart,

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

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

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

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

TO DONATE:

Click here or…

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

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




Latest Edition Now Available Online

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

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




Israeli Teen Arrested for Making Bomb Threats to Jewish Centers

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

By John Tiffany

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

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

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

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Tiffany writes exclusively for AMERICAN FREE PRESS.