Bernie and the Rise of ‘She’ Guevara

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s demand for fair primary elections has the old guard trembling.

By S.T. Patrick

The Republican Party, Fox News Channel, and the National Review have spent three months lamenting the end of Western civilization as we know it, an apocalyptic tremor that is sure to befall America since the November election of 29-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). The carbon tax, they claim, will surely have us all living on the street in boxes, and an increase to the marginal tax rate will devastate the billionaires who pay our minimum-wage salaries—or less, if they could do so legally. Yet the newest politicos concerned with the rise of “She Guevara” do not come from the right. The Democratic Party has its own internal issues with Ocasio-Cortez, many of which deal not with ideology, but with maintaining an entrenched, established, entitled power structure that is devoid of party, ethics, or concern for the average American or citizen worldwide.

Love her or hate her, Ocasio-Cortez is a natural challenger and an unabashed far-left progressive who believes in the ideology she espouses. She is also a populist in the sense that she does appear to have a genuine concern for the average resident of the Bronx and Queens, the boroughs of New York City encapsulated within her 14th congressional district. The Republican base differs with her on policy, but they also long for a sweeping hoard of Ocasio-Cortezes to arise from the populist right. What Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) did for the left is what populist-libertarians hoped former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) would have done for the right—be the leader of a wave, a movement of youthful ideologues with a natural propensity to change their own party by sticking to closely held ideals.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

It is that internal zest for change that scares establishment Democrats just as much as it does fiscally conservative Republicans. One of the first ideas pushed by Ocasio-Cortez after her win was the idea of turning the Democratic primaries into true races rather than job interviews conducted by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

“Turning the Democratic Party into a truly progressive force will require turning ‘primary’ into a verb,” wrote Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group “” “The corporate Democrats who dominate the party’s power structure in Congress should fear losing their seats because they’re out of step with constituents. And Democratic voters should understand that if they want to change the party, the only path to do so is to change the people who represent them. Otherwise, the leverage of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex will continue to hold sway.”

The idea for young politicians from both parties is to turn safe districts into real primary challenges. No longer should a 24-term Republican congressman like Don Young go virtually unchallenged in Alaska, and no longer should a 20-year congressman like Joseph Crowley own the 14th congressional district of New York. Ocasio-Cortez defeated fourth-ranking House Democrat Crowley in the 2018 primaries.

According to executive director of the far-left Justice Democrats, Alexandra Rojas, one goal of the new class of far-left Democrats is to “hold representatives who throw diverse working-class voters under the bus accountable.”

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

Working-class Democratic voters still feel aggrieved about the Sanders loss to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2016. “Bernie got screwed!” can still be heard nationwide. Though the Democratic voter would support Sanders, the DNC-controlled “superdelegate” would have their support weighed to the advantage of Clinton. Sanders won Indiana’s popular primary vote and then lost the delegate vote 46-44. New Hampshire overwhelmingly supported Sanders over Clinton (60% to 38%), yet the delegate vote—the only vote that counts at the convention—was Sanders 16, Clinton 16.

The average Democratic voter remains voiceless if the primary shackles and chains applied by the DNC aren’t released. This is another cause being championed by Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats, and it is another bone of contention they have with the DNC.

The DNC and its opposing Republican National Committee (RNC) both have a systemic belief that positions are earned through time and service to the party. It works top-down. Conservative-populists and Justice Democrats would both argue that a representative democracy, or democratic republic, should work bottom-up. A candidate should be chosen not by age, not by service to a powerful political organization, and not by a list of billionaire-donors. A candidate, they believe, should be chosen by the will of the people, in support of someone who truly represents their values, beliefs, goals, and objectives. It is the tip of a groundswell and not a directive from on high.

The 2020 Democratic primaries will feature the kind of “genuine progressive versus corporate Democrat” that Ocasio-Cortez supports. She will likely be on-site to speak in support of many of those on the far left. Regardless of ideology, this is vital in holding the status quo accountable. The GOP could take a lesson and do the same rather than ignoring it, as it did with the Occupy Wall Street rallies from whence this movement of the left and the Sanders campaign partially came.

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

Russian Presence Feared in Mideast

Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz warns that the Russians are back—and looking to threaten Israel.

By Richard Walker

A warning that Russia has returned to the Middle East to threaten Israel is just one of many alarming claims coming from Israel and from figures in the U.S. military who have added China to the mix.

Mor Altshuler in Israeli’s leading newspaper, Ha’aretz, has warned that Russia is back after 45 years specifically to threaten Israel, and that its expanding Russian naval presence could interrupt Israel’s energy plans in the eastern Mediterranean and hold them hostage. She also questioned the Trump administration’s commitment to Israel: “Are all the players on our side playing with clean hands? Frankly, I must say that soon I might start missing Barack Obama.”

Her warning was very much in keeping with a growing fear within the Israeli political and military establishment that there is a changing strategic environment in the eastern Mediterranean where Israel has a small coastline with the Mediterranean Sea, compared to countries it considers enemies, such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria.

Some believe that the Trump administration has become too isolationist, yet Israel believes it should be able to project its power into the eastern Mediterranean region, both militarily and in pursuit of claiming rights to gas fields under the sea. It is the prospect of energy riches, as much as exerting a strong military footprint that shapes Israeli opinion. However, without a strong U.S. naval presence in the region to rely on, Israel has begun to feel vulnerable, and more so since Russia has a large Mediterranean fleet based on the Syrian port city of Tartus. In comparison, Israel possesses a small naval force.

According to NATO sources, on a recent trip to Tel Aviv, National Security Advisor John Bolton got an earful from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the threat posed to Israel by Russia and by China’s big spending to buy friends and influence in the eastern Mediterranean. Netanyahu complained that the U.S. no longer has any of its fleets based in the region and that Israel was being closed in by its enemies.

The eastern Mediterranean has taken on greater significance for Israel and for other nations in the region, especially Turkey, since the discovery of large gas deposits off the island of Cyprus, which is equally controlled by Greece and Turkey. Israel and Egypt quickly signed a deal with the Greek Cypriots and Egypt to pipe gas to Arab nations and to Europe via Greece, thereby bypassing Turkish and Russian pipelines. The Turks weren’t long in deciding that they had rights to drill for energy in the waters around Cyprus, and they announced that they even had plans for a large naval base in the north of the island. The announcement panicked the Greeks, who controlled most of Cyprus, and the Israelis. Turkey, with perhaps the largest coastline in the eastern Mediterranean, was in effect saying to Israel, “Not so fast.” It was a warning that did not go down well in Tel Aviv. The prospect of future naval clashes between Israel and Turkey quickly dampened the enthusiasm of the big U.S. and French oil giants, who were anxious to get their hands on a share of the riches by handling exploration and the building of pipelines.

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

While the energy issue is undoubtedly important in explaining Israel’s growing unease, there are bigger issues at play that define why Israel feels it faces an existential threat. Neocons have for some time added to Israel’s fear by claiming that the Trump administration is failing in its duty by not ordering Turkey to abandon building a large naval base on Cyprus. In fact, the Trump administration has preferred a hands-off policy. Turkey is, after all, a NATO member, and it has a right to build a base if it wishes. There is no indication that the Trump White House has any desire to intervene no matter how much Israel is pressing for action.

The critical issue driving Israeli fears is that it cannot manipulate Russia. It therefore sees the alignment of Russia with Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran a serious threat to its power. But that aside, there is also the agenda of some in the ranks of the U.S. military who feel that Russia and China have an agreed strategy across the Middle East. Commander Tony Chavez, a member of the globalist group Chicago Council on Global Affairs, argues that Russia is determined to control the region, as evidenced by the fact that in September 2018 it held the largest Mediterranean naval exercise since the Cold War. He also points to China’s growing use of ports across the eastern Mediterranean as part of a new policy to confront U.S. power.

While Israel and its neocon backers in Washington press for a return of a powerful U.S. naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, it seems that, for now, that is not going to happen.

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

China’s Amazing Renaissance

The U.S. should emulate major planks of the Chinese financial resurgence program before that economically booming nation leaves America in the dust.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

The most serious foreign policy decision the U.S. faces is how to deal with the rise of China. The Chinese economy has enjoyed historically unprecedented, explosive growth, with real per capita income rising 1,300% in three decades. As a result, China is about to overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest economy, if it has not done so already. By 2030 it will have begun leaving America in the dust.

Since economic strength is the basis of technological and military power, U.S. strategists are naturally concerned. Such strategic worries may be the real reason for Canada’s U.S.-incited kidnapping of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou. Wanzhou was ostensibly arrested for violating sanctions on Iran, but according to Anatoly Karlin’s “Connecting the Dots in the Huawei Kidnapping,” published at “,” Wanzhou was on route to Argentina to meet with Zhang Shoucheng, the physics genius behind an apparent breakthrough in microchip technology.

The Wanzhou-Shoucheng meeting never happened. On Dec. 1, 2018 Wanzhou was kidnapped in Vancouver by Canadian authorities following U.S. orders. On the very same day, Shoucheng allegedly committed suicide in California, leading some to believe that Wanzhou and Shoucheng may be victims of a covert U.S. war on Chinese strategic technology.

Kingdom Identity

Should Americans panic about the rise of China? Would a world dominated by Chinese economic and technological power become a global gulag, given traditional Chinese authoritarianism, autocracy, and anti-individualism? There are reasons for concern. China is already a near cashless society, meaning the individual has zero economic privacy. Likewise, China is leading the lemmings’ stampede toward a 5G “Internet of things,” a dystopian nightmare in which your refrigerator, washing machine, vacuum cleaner, toaster, electric meter, and self-driving automobile will all be spying on you . . . until the day they realize they don’t really need you anymore.

China’s embrace of techno-dystopianism is dismaying but not surprising, given that nation’s traditional preference for conformism over individuality, and for materialism over spirituality. The Chinese Internet is even more censored than ours, though ours is rapidly catching up. Dissidents are rigorously suppressed. Uyghur Muslims are kidnapped by the hundreds of thousands and forced into re-education camps, where brainwashing specialists attempt to annihilate their religion and culture.

But there are also positive sides to China’s centralized system of power. China’s 80%-state-owned banks, unlike privately owned Western central banks, are dedicated to the public interest, not private profit. That is why Chinese economic growth has outstripped the West’s, and why Chinese infrastructure projects, including the One Belt One Road initiative, are the eighth wonder of the world.

Among China’s incredible infrastructure projects are an impressive array of environmental initiatives subsumed under the rubric of “Ecological civilization.” Chinese cities have sprouted green belts, limited the private automobile, and enabled an array of green transportation alternatives. Beijing now has the world’s greatest metro. Migration to the overcrowded big cities has been reversed, and thousands of organic farming-based green villages are emerging. Coal is now supplying slightly over half of China’s power, down from 80% in 2010. According to John Cobb and André Vltchek’s China and Ecological Civilization, China’s environmental situation is improving more rapidly than in any other nation. For a country experiencing such rapid economic growth, that is rather miraculous.

“The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. At the AFP Store.

So perhaps we should consider Chinese virtues as well as Chinese vices. Unfortunately, many strategists see the U.S.-China faceoff as a zero-sum game, a fight that will have a winner and a loser. Their insistence on winning at any cost, or at least trying to, could reinforce the worst aspects of Chinese power.

Rather than falling into the Thucydides trap of war between an American hegemon and a rising China, American policymakers should learn from China’s experience. Specifically, the U.S. desperately needs to nationalize its banks and issue its own currency in service to the public interest. Then, like China, it would be able to finance economic growth while improving its infrastructure and raise living standards, even while moving toward ecological sustainability.

By eliminating private central banking, the U.S. could revive itself as a moral and spiritual as well as economic competitor to China. Under the current neoliberal, banker-owned, post-9/11 police state, we barely even pay lip service to the ideals of freedom and individuality that supposedly distinguish us from Chinese authoritarian leaders and conformist subjects. Sometimes it even seems that our leaders are competing with China and other authoritarian countries to see who can crush the free human spirit more efficiently.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions.

President Cools Two Mideast Hot Zones But Ignites Another in South America

U.S. dirty tricks in Venezuela, like the previous decades of covert action intended to destroy nations throughout Latin America, are designed to cripple the nation’s resistance to U.S. hegemony.

By S.T. Patrick

Assuming the Russiagate story were completely true, the Trump campaign would be guilty of encouraging Russian social media trolls to flood Facebook with political attack ads as hackers chipped away at Democrat emails. The Trump campaign would be guilty of encouraging the leaking of those emails, some of which were stored illegally on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal home server. They would be guilty of campaign dirty tricks that have become commonplace in American political campaigns since the late 1960s. If all of that were true—and it’s becoming clearer by the week that very little of it was—then that still would not even approach the dirty deeds that American presidential administrations have engaged in throughout Venezuela for decades.

Most recently, it began with a telephone call from D.C. Vice President Mike Pence phoned Juan Guaido, a mid-level politician of the opposition far-right party who had recently been closely associated with street violence across Venezuela. Upon the end of the Pence call, Guaido immediately declared himself president of Venezuela.

Writing for the anti-war website “,” journalists Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal called Guaido the “previously unknown political bottom dweller (who) was vaulted onto the international stage as the U.S.-selected leader of the nation with the world’s largest oil reserves.”

The U.S.-supported coup d’etât was immediately backed by typically pro-war, pro-interventionist American media outlets such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and “Bloomberg News.” Among the rubber-stampers were Canada, Israel, parts of western Europe, and the far-right Latin American countries known as the “Lima group.”

Just what Guaido is and why he was chosen for this role seems to be debated among observers of Latin American politics.

Diego Sequera, a Venezuelan writer and journalist, told “Grayzone,” “Guaido is more popular outside Venezuela than inside, especially in the elite Ivy League and Washington circles. He’s a known character there, is predictably right-wing, and is considered loyal to the program.”

That “program” appears to be the covert operation by which U.S. intelligence-backed infiltrators are placed in positions of power in foreign governments so that they can ascend to prominence, destroying a nation’s structure in the process. The U.S. and the international banking powers (World Bank, International Monetary Fund etc.) can then descend upon the crippled country, force predatory loans, gain control of the most valuable natural resources, and then control that country from the board room rather than the battlefield.

Cohen and Blumenthal write, “But this is precisely why Guaido was selected by Washington: He is not expected to lead Venezuela toward democracy, but to collapse a country that for the past two decades has been a bulwark of resistance to U.S. hegemony. His unlikely rise signals the culmination of a two decades-long project to destroy a robust socialist experiment.”

Neoconservative Threat, Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony by Paul Craig Roberts on sale at the AFP Store.

The U.S. has targeted Venezuela since the rise of Hugo Chavez in 1998. Chavez survived a variety of assassination plots throughout the administrations of presidents Bush and Obama. Upon his death in 2013, Nicolas Maduro became his successor, who in turn survived three assassination attempts on his own life.

The anti-Chavez student operation began its training in 2005 in Serbia. The training was supplied by the Center for Applied Non-Violent Action and Strategies, or CANVAS, a group that receives a majority of its funding through the National Endowment for Democracy. The NED is a CIA cutout and is largely responsible for serving as the U.S. government’s main outlet for regime-change activities. They topple dictators, but not just any dictator; the NED topples dictators the U.S. government opposes. Leaked emails from Stratfor, a private intelligence group some have labeled as the “shadow CIA,” reveal that “[CANVAS] may have also received CIA funding and training during the 1999/2000 anti-Milosevic struggle.” These are the same people and the same lending trees that now touch the U.S.-backed coup in Venezuela.

At press time, President Donald Trump has called an anti-Maduro military intervention in Venezuela “an option.” Russia has warned against this kind of “destructive meddling.” China and Turkey also oppose the move.

When looking at geopolitical movements, it is wise to look at actions and principles rather than flags, propagandistic labels, and symbology. Looking past “evil empire,” “axis of evil,” and “troika of tyranny” to see the covert attempts at colonial and financial intervention can show us what we have failed to see behind terms like “socialist,” “dictator” or “liberty.” Words do have meaning, but actions are even more telling. Though the Trump administration has made positive recent inroads toward peace in Syria and Afghanistan, the actions that have been taken in Venezuela are ultimately troubling. Cooling one international hot zone does not justify igniting another elsewhere.

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

Latin America: Uncle Sam’s Foreign Policy Graveyard

Washington neocons are in favor of direct U.S. military involvement in bringing about regime change in Venezuela, and President Trump has offered support to opposition leader Juan Guaido who is seeking to replace the nation’s elected sitting President Nicolas Maduro. It seems no one is considering the long and sordid history of U.S. intervention in Latin America, with its disastrous consequences.

By Richard Walker

United States intervention in Latin America has proved disastrous for over a century, making the prospect of taking sides in the developing crisis in Venezuela a very risky prospect. On Jan. 23, President Donald Trump signaled he was in favor of regime change in Venezuela by offering his backing to opposition leader Juan Guaido, who had just declared himself interim president. Guaido made the move despite the fact that sitting President Nicolas Maduro had no plans to step down. While Canada and some Western powers supported Trump’s decision, Russia, China, Turkey, and Italy condemned it. Some observers warned that it might open a path to the Cold War politics that dominated Latin America for decades.

Those with cool heads believe this political conflict has the potential to descend into a civil war that could see the types of forced migration reminiscent of what happened in Iraq and Syria. It could have a devastating impact on neighboring countries and ultimately on the United States. Venezuela is much larger than Iraq with roughly the same size of population, and any U.S. military force tasked with regime change would have to number close to 80,000 to 100,000.

Washington neocons are in favor of direct U.S. military involvement, but by any standard they are blind to the sordid history of American interventionist politics in the southern hemisphere. The media, for its part, has generally tended to overstate Guaido’s power and support, given that Maduro retains the backing of the country’s military and at least half the population. It is also a fact that Chavistas, as Maduro supporters are known—taking their name from the nation’s late president, Hugo Chavez—are well armed and would pose a serious threat to an invading force should Trump commit troops to Venezuela to overthrow Maduro. There is a real possibility such a strategy would erupt into extreme violence and a full-blown civil war. The U.S. would have to go it alone, because neighboring countries are opposed to military intervention, and there is no consensus within the UN Security Council for such a strategy.

Those contemplating U.S. military intervention would be well advised to read the history books. A century after Christopher Columbus landed in the New World, the big European colonial powers, especially the Spanish and the Portuguese, began a conquest in search of riches that led to the destruction of the two great civilizations of the Americas, the Incas and the Aztecs. The British and the French followed, and they all plundered the continent. European influence began to wane quickly after 1823 when President James Monroe issued the Monroe Doctrine, ordering Europeans to end their colonial projects. In other words, he told them to go home. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt issued his “Corollary” declaration, ceding to Washington the right to interfere when it chose in the Americas. It subsequently became the basis for the last 100 years of Washington’s regime-change policies in Latin America, some of them overt and others covert.

An example of how 20th-century Washington power players viewed the southern hemisphere is this statement by Robert Olds, undersecretary of state in 1929: “There is no room for any outside influence other than ours. … Central America has always understood that governments we support stay in power, while those we do not recognize and support fall. … It is difficult to see how we can afford to be defeated.”

A year after Olds made his comments, Raphael Trujillo, an officer trained by the U.S. military, became dictator of the Dominican Republic with Washington’s approval.

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

According to American historian John Coatsworth, U.S. intervention in Latin America has been unrelenting since 1899 with 41 successful regime-change interventions, which he says is essentially one every 28 months. He makes the following observations: “Direct intervention occurred in 17 of the 41 cases. These incidents involved the use of U.S. military forces, intelligence agents or local citizens employed by U.S. government agencies. In another 24 cases, the U.S. government played an indirect role. That is, local actors played the principal roles, but either would not have acted or would not have succeeded without encouragement from the U.S. government.”

Venezuela is one of the countries that has seen a lot of U.S. indirect interference through the CIA’s use of cut-out organizations and the financing of elements within protest movements.

Trump may yet discard advice from neocons that have long held the position that intervention in the Americas is good for U.S. security. This is not the Cold War, and communism no longer dominates the region. U.S. military intervention could, however, change all that. It is also worth noting that vested U.S. corporate interests have always argued that Washington ought to return control of Venezuela’s oil riches to them. Energy is never far from the surface of Washington’s Latin American policymaking.

A unique statistic, rarely mentioned, is that intervention in the Americas has always accelerated mass migration toward the U.S. border. Estimates put the Hispanic population in the U.S. at 150 million within three decades.

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

Let Us Prey

Are evangelical politicians crafting U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East to fulfill biblical prophecy? You decide.

By Philip Giraldi

There are an estimated 30 million fundamentalist Christians in the United States, constituting something like one-half of all regular churchgoers. Most Christian fundamentalists are also dispensationalists, which means they think that Christianity is going through phases, or dispensations, that will lead to the rapture of true believers into heaven followed by the wrath of God descending on those who refuse to see the light. Many dispensationalists fervently hope that the End of Days—when all will be resolved through the Second Coming of Christ—will take place soon. For many, the expectation is that it is imminent.

Because the gathering of Jews back into the Middle East is believed to be an essential precondition for the Second Coming, dispensationalists are also frequently self-described as Christian Zionists (CZ), which means in practice that they literally believe that Jews are the Chosen People of God with all that might imply. As a result, CZ are, politically speaking, strong and totally uncritical supporters of the state of Israel, though their support is conditional as they also believe that the Jews, like everyone else who does not welcome the return of the Messiah and convert, will go straight to hell after the final battle of Armageddon is fought against Satan. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have consequently described Christian Zionists as “. . . scum. But don’t tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now.” CZ are powerful friends of Israel who will be used and eventually discarded when no longer needed.

Religious fundamentalists have a powerful presence in the Donald J. Trump White House. At the top level of policy making, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are prominent evangelical Christians who are outspoken in how their religious beliefs shape their perceptions of what the United States should and must do in its interaction with other less enlightened nations, particularly in the Middle East.

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

A speech made by Pompeo at the American University in Cairo on Jan. 10 suggests how Christian Zionist beliefs impact policy making in Washington. In it, Pompeo reveals his own peculiar vision of what is taking place in the Middle East, to include the impact of his own personal religiosity, and his belief that Washington’s proper role in the region is to act as “a force for good.” Pompeo asserted, “This trip is especially meaningful for me as an evangelical Christian. . . . In my office, I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and the Truth. And it’s the truth, lower-case ‘t,’ that I’m here to talk about today. It is a truth that isn’t often spoken in this part of the world, but because I’m a military man by training, I’ll be very blunt and direct today: America is a force for good in the Middle East.”

During a January 2018 trip by Pence to Israel, his eighth trip to that country but the first as vice president, a speech before the Knesset reportedly first required the removal of all Arab members, who had expressed their disapproval of what they knew was coming. Pence told the all-Jewish remaining legislators, “We stand with Israel because your cause is our cause, your values are our values, and your fight is our fight. We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny.” And Pence even had a crumb to throw to the audience back at home regarding the impending move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, saying, “Our president made his decision, in his words, ‘In the best interests of the American people.’ ” Pence concluded with, “The miracle of Israel is an inspiration to the world. And the United States of America is proud to stand with Israel and her people, as allies and cherished friends.”

The scary thing is that Pompeo and Pence likely believe their own rhetoric. It would be hard to compress so much nonsense into a few sentences without looking completely ridiculous, but both men in their zealotry seek to convey a measure of rectitude relating to a whole basket of untruths without even breathing hard. First of all, describing the U.S. as a force for good in the Middle East is to ignore the deaths of hundreds of thousands—possibly even millions—of Muslims in a vain attempt to democratize the region. And the American people have never endorsed the relationship with Israel in any way and do not “stand with Israel” out of any conviction. Recent opinion polls suggest that most Americans are quite ambivalent about Israel and what it represents in spite of having been on the receiving end of more than 50 years of incessant propaganda extolling falsely “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

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

In truth, the Israeli special relationship is something that has been created and fostered by a corrupted-by-cash political class and a media supported by a powerful and unscrupulous domestic lobby backed up by an oligarchy of pro-Israel billionaires.

As for values and causes, Americans would be appalled if they were to witness the misery inflicted on the Palestinians by the Israelis. Right over wrong? Good over evil? Where is the justice for the Palestinians? Israel’s government is itself evil—an apartheid state that denies benefits to its own citizens if they adhere to the wrong religion. Tyranny? That’s what occurs in the West Bank and in the strangling of Gaza every single day.

In response to the Pence visit, Jane Eisner of the Jewish newspaper The Forward warned that, “Trump has handed Israel policy to evangelicals. That’s terrifying.” As a liberal Jew, her concern was that U.S. policy would be driven by some potentially dangerous evangelical beliefs that certain conditions, to include complete Jewish control over the West Bank—described as Judea and Samaria—should be satisfied solely to fulfill biblical prophecies.

Matt Brooks, who heads the Republican Jewish Coalition, disagreed with Eisner, saying, “They always highlight the fact that [they are] evangelicals, as if that’s a pejorative when in fact [Pence, Pompeo and other evangelicals] are motivated first and foremost by shared values with Israel. And not just by the shared values, but the important efforts of collectively standing up to threats of Iran, pushing back on ISIS, and on radical Islam, or whether it’s being a critical democratic foundation in a very dangerous place. There are so many places where U.S. and Israel’s interests intersect.”

Brooks is, of course, making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Israel and the United States have virtually no real common interests and the arguments being made to the contrary are essentially fraudulent. And the question of whether Pompeo and Pence actually believe that the Second Coming is imminent is essentially moot. They share the conviction that the state of Israel must be protected at all costs, a view that certainly shapes their policy recommendations regarding the Middle East. That view also has an impact on policy toward Israel’s neighbors, with Iran in particular being vilified as the purely evil foe, a “cancerous influence,” according to Pompeo, that is increasingly seen as allied with Satan and which will be destroyed in Armageddon. Pence also doubled down on Iran in his Knesset speech, inaccurately calling it “the leading state sponsor of terror . . . a brutal dictatorship . . . seeking to dominate the Arab world . . . devoted more than $4 billion to malign activities in Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere . . . supported terrorist groups that even now sit on Israel’s doorstep . . . and, worst of all, the Iranian regime has pursued a clandestine nuclear program.”

An openly racist Israel is hardly inspirational with its persistent playing of the victim card while it cynically exploits Christians like Pompeo and Pence to provide it with money, arms, and political cover at the expense of all Americans, most of whom do not share their religious beliefs.

Israel is no actual ally of the U.S., has never sent its soldiers to fight alongside Americans, and is hardly even a friend as evidenced by its record of interfering in U.S. domestic politics to receive billions of dollars annually from the American taxpayer. Nor would its recurrent theft of U.S.-developed high tech and defense secrets stand much scrutiny. But the two Mikes were most likely not briefed on all that stuff, besides which, they have probably received instructions on cherishing Israel directly from God.

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

Activists Call for Ouster of Canada’s Trudeau as Yellow Vest Protests Spread Across Nation

President Trump’s populist message has obviously spread across our northern border, as the “yellow vest” movement has grown there demanding the ouster of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his globalist policies.

By Mark Anderson

Conservative Canadian activist groups have joined forces over the last three years and now are bringing France’s “yellow vest” movement into the fold, as group members take strong issue with Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and what they see as his globalist-Marxist policies.

Although Canada’s “yellow vests” may not be quite as forceful as those who birthed the populist movement in France, Trudeau’s apparent perfidy and his distressing declaration that Canada is the world’s first “post-national” state very well could spark a repeat of what’s been happening in France.

British Columbia resident Tanya Gaw of the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Government and members of several other groups, including Act for Canada, regularly take to the streets across their vast nation to protest Trudeau’s policies, including his move to pinch Canadians ever-harder with the carbon tax that’s tied to what these groups see as a phony “climate change” ideology.

They also say that Trudeau’s especially loose immigration laws are watering down Canada’s cultural and national identity.

Kingdom Identity

“We’re having 170 rallies per weekend—some at city halls, some at highway overpasses. It’s an opportunity for the people to get united,” Ms. Gaw told AFP. “The Oct. 21, 2019 federal election is our opportunity to get Justin Trudeau out of office. Now that the yellow vest movement is here in Canada, this is fabulous. We’ve been getting lots of people honking and showing their support with thumbs-up at the rallies.”

Asked whether the stark contrast between President Donald Trump and Trudeau has had a discernable effect on Canadians’ political outlook, Ms. Gaw said that despite frequent distortion of Trump’s words and actions by mainstream Canadian media, “there are many supporters of Donald Trump in Canada. Trump has given this grassroots movement a big push in Canada and even in the EU.”

Ms. Gaw and her fellow activists are eyeing Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier of the new People’s Party of Canada as a potential replacement for Trudeau. She recalled that Bernier, when he was a Conservative Party member, took on former House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer in the spring of 2017 in the election for the party’s leadership. The race was close, but Scheer got elected to the leadership post under questionable circumstances, including the destruction of some 7,000 ballots, making a desired recount impossible.

This apparent election theft was coupled with betrayal. Scheer—once considered to be an able leader for Canadian social and constitutional conservatives—eventually followed the script often used by sold-out Republicans in name only in the U.S. and abandoned his core supporters by dropping his opposition to same-sex marriage and watering down his opposition to abortion.

“He did an about-face on these social issues,” Ms. Gaw said, adding that while some people claim Bernier will split the ticket, more and more people are jumping ship from both the Liberal Party and National Democratic Party, which could very well help the People’s Party. Bernier started the Peoples Party from scratch, and has reportedly laid the groundwork for brisk growth as disenchantment toward Trudeau grows.

New World Order Exposed, Thorn
Available from AFP’s Online Store.

These activists’ concerns also extend to Canada under Trudeau adopting highly objectionable United Nations policies, such as what Ms. Gaw described as “vile sex-ed resources” going into Canadian schools connected to the UN’s promotion of the LGBTQ movement, unchecked immigration and open borders, and, among other matters, the rise of political Islam with allegations, based on a special report, that the government is giving tax dollars to terrorist outfits via Islamic charities.

Signs at the groups’ rallies say things like “Trudeau is Treason,” “Stop Globalism; No Carbon Tax,” and, “We did not elect the United Nations to govern our country.”

As for the yellow vests, whose website is, they’ve issued a mission statement which says, in part: “We, the citizens of Canada, have come together under the yellow vest banner for the sole purpose of protesting and rallying against our successive establishment governments who have sold our sovereignty to the UN through the carbon tax/pipelines (Paris Agreement], the migrant compact, and ultimately the sustainable development agenda.”

Another component of this burgeoning grassroots movement is a planned truck convoy to the national capital of Ottawa, Ontario, slated to take place Feb. 19, according to organizer Ron Barr.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.

Biggest Video Website Will Censor ‘Conspiracy’ Topics

Another hypocritical censorship campaign’s goal is to fight “fake news.” YouTube’s “shadow ban” will “protect” viewers from controversial videos. 

By Donald Jeffries

YouTube recently made it official: It announced its plan to tweak the computer code that is used to maintain the website in order to block so-called conspiracy videos from potential viewers. Called essentially a “shadow ban,” the popular online video service will be suppressing key words that will effectively prevent viewers from being able to watch any videos that its corporate owners view as controversial.

The announcement, authored by “the YouTube team,” went on to declare, “We’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways.” What kinds of videos will this entail? YouTube says it will specifically target “videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the Earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”

Regular perusers of YouTube have noticed over the past few years that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find results when searching for alternative takes on historical or current events.

This is the latest in a series of overt attempts to censor the Internet, which began in earnest last August when the most high-profile figure in alternative news, Alex Jones, was summarily banned by all social media platforms. To add insult to injury, Jones was even banned by PayPal. Twitter permanently banned Jones, as well as his vocal supporter Roger Stone, for unclear and largely laughable “abuses.”

Meanwhile, actor Peter Fonda, who last year suggested putting 10-year-old Barron Trump into a cage with pedophiles, was never punished and remains free to tweet.

In the wake of a recent media-fueled attack on a group of Catholic boys from Kentucky, a “Saturday Night Live” writer tweeted out an offer to provide sexual services to anyone who “punched the MAGA kid in the face.” Even worse, a Disney producer tweeted out a graphic image along with a proposal for running these high school kids through a woodchipper. Those, and numerous other high-profile figures who urged violence on these underage kids, didn’t even receive a timeout from Twitter.

The ostensible reason behind this censorship is a desire to keep the public safe from the “fake news” of alternative sites. However Microsoft recently had to concede that, when it comes to its new blacklisting tool called NewsGuard, many of the outlets it lists as credible—which is basically any mainstream outlet—have themselves been guilty of spreading false information.

As Breitbart News discovered, NewsGuard continues to list the most absurd, thoroughly discredited stories as legitimate, including the retracted 2014 gang-rape hoax at the University of Virginia.

When Breitbart questioned NewsGuard about this, they received the following reply: “News- Guard rates the credibility and transparency practices of websites as a whole, *not* individual stories.

A green icon means that the website has not failed enough of our nine journalistic criteria to get a red rating, but does not mean that specific article is ‘verified.’ ”

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Needless to say, Infowars and the other alternative outlets have never been permitted to be mistaken about a particular story or stories yet still maintain their overall credibility.

Whatever one may think about Jones, every American should be worried that he was banned from social media for “objectionable content,” while the most vile and obscene threats against Donald Trump or those who support him are allowed free reign.

The First Amendment once meant something. Most Americans don’t realize that even the “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” restriction didn’t come about until a Supreme Court decision was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes during World War I, to justify the government’s imprisonment of those who opposed the conflict.

The advent of radio and television didn’t result in any extension of free speech to those unforeseen venues; instead, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created to police these new means of communication in ways that were entirely inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Because the FCC doesn’t and can’t control content online, those who have restricted the parameters of debate in other forms of media have long desired to crush the egalitarian, unfettered nature of the Internet. The Internet makes anyone a potential journalist, and gives everyone a space to voice their opinion. Forbes magazine spoke for the entire Deep State with its headline, “YouTube Stops Recommending Conspiracy Videos, Finally.”

This has been an ongoing effort since it began nearly a year ago, when YouTube announced it was going to link directly to Wikipedia, “to fight conspiracy theories.”

As the Guardian wisely warned, “Taking them down fuels it more.” Such heavy-handed censorship kind of verifies what all those “conspiracy videos” are saying. Either we have the right to free expression, or we don’t.

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

Schools Now Military Recruitment Centers

Allowing the military mindset to have free rein in schools is a dangerous idea. S.T. Patrick argues, if we are going to demilitarize our kids, we must also redefine the meaning of both “hero” and “heroic.”

By S.T. Patrick

When a school shooting occurs in America, the reflexive conventional wisdom is to look at gun control, further regulating the weapon. That would be feasible and even logical if the weapon controlled the individual. However, acts are the end result of thought processes, thought patterns, and social indoctrination. Therefore, we, as a society, should look with diligence at those factors that have normalized violence, a rigid adherence to dominance, and a twisted view of authority in our high schools. The militarization of public schools has done much to normalize a way of thinking that stresses violence as an effective means to an end.

While in ninth grade at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSDHS), Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, was a member of JROTC, the Army’s Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. Cruz wore his JROTC polo shirt while being arrested. It was something of which, on that day, he was proud. In the spring of 2017, Marksman 1st Lieutenant Diaz won first place in the Florida State JROTC championships in an event called “Standing Rifle.” The JROTC program at MSDHS in Parkland advanced to the Florida state championships again in the spring of 2018 without a significant public challenge, just months after the shooting and months after the anti-gun protests began.

The Diversity Delusion, MacDonald
“How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine our Culture,” Brand new at AFP!

While actively promoting JROTC, Florida schools also have strict anti-gun and anti-weapon policies. It’s like forming a basketball team while simultaneously banning all sports equipment on school grounds.

After a major lobbying effort from the U.S. military, states responded by adding JROTC programs to a much larger percentage of public schools. Today, over 1,600 schools have marksmanship programs, with students as young as 13 enrolled. Florida has been especially receptive to JROTC programs, allowing entrants to substitute the JROTC curriculum in place of life management, physical science, physical education, art, and biology.

The commitment of Florida’s Department of Education to JROTC is now so entrenched that it includes JROTC coursework being weighted as an advanced placement course. While Broward County, Fla. requires that all teachers hold a teaching certification, a bachelor’s degree, and some sort of master’s-level coursework within a required number of years, many JROTC “teachers” are retired enlisted soldiers who possess no such credentials. Many have little or no college education.

Kingdom Identity

The late peace activist and alternative historian John Judge fought for decades to end the militarization on high school and college campuses around America. If a recruiter was allowed on a nearby campus, Judge would push for an opportunity to set up a table nearby. He would tell high school and college kids why they shouldn’t get involved with JROTC or enlist in the U.S. military. At the 2014 Celebration of the Life of John Judge, friend and anti-militarization activist Pat Elder spoke about how Judge influenced his own work.

“He spoke of a poverty draft and starving a wicked war machine of its most vital resource. And he never strayed from his most fervent nonviolent stance,” Elder said. “John’s life was an epiphany for all of us. He opened my eyes to the Pentagon’s invasion of our high schools, and he taught me how to resist it. He understood the inherently unfair arrangement between recruiter and recruited, especially the psychological training and the advantage recruiters have. I initially saw it in terms of military recruiters lying to my sons and my daughters in the high school lunch room. But John helped me to connect the dots.”

If we are going to demilitarize our kids, we must also redefine the meaning of both “hero” and “heroic.” If we keep applauding as uniforms carry bags through airports, if we insist on attaching heroism to every militarized police officer, and if we continue thanking every enlistee for their “service,” then we will continue to glorify the same forces that wreak havoc worldwide. When we train our kids to shoot well and adhere to a strict military mindset in their most vulnerable psychological years, are we training elite killers who will shoot at designated enemies beneath the country’s flag, or are we training kids who will shoot at their own designated enemies from the school library? As a teenager, where do those paths cross and what dangers are inherent?

To be clear, JROTC are not fathers in Montana who speak to their sons and daughters about conservation, a love of the land, and a grateful respect for all wildlife and nature. These are the first steps of enlistment, a long-perfected public relations tactic to recruit students at young ages.

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

Are the Democrats Bent on Suicide?

Pat Buchanan says the New Green Deal proposed by far-left Democrats including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders reads like a “Democratic Party suicide pact.” The question he asks is “why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After reading an especially radical platform agreed upon by the British Labor Party, one Tory wag described it as “the longest suicide note in history.”

The phrase comes to mind on reading of the resolution calling for a Green New Deal, advanced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and endorsed by at least five of the major Democratic candidates for president.

The Green New Deal is designed to recall the halcyon days of the 1930s, when, so the story goes, FDR came to Washington to enact the historic reforms that rescued America from the Great Depression.

Only that story is more than a small myth.

The unemployment rate when FDR took the oath in 1933 was 25%. It never fell below 14% through the 1930s. In June 1938, despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress, FDR was presiding over a nation where unemployment was back up to 19%.

World War II and the conscription of 16 million young men gave us “full employment.” And the war’s end and demobilization saw the return of real prosperity in 1946, after FDR was dead.

Yet this Green New Deal is nothing if not ambitious.

To cope with climate change, the GND calls for a 10-year plan to meet “100% of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

This appears to require a phase-out by 2030 of all carbon-emitting power plants fueled by coal and oil and their replacement by power plants fueled by wind and solar.

Will natural gas be permitted? Will nuclear power? There are 60 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 98 nuclear reactors in 30 states. Will they be shut down? Will the Greens agree to dam up more U.S. rivers to produce renewable hydroelectric power?

Air travel consumes huge quantities of carbon-producing jet fuel. What will replace it? Perhaps progressive Democratic candidates will set an example by not flying, and then by voting to end production of private aircraft and to ground all corporate jets. Let the elites sail to Davos.

The GND calls for an overhaul of the “transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector … through … clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

Take Back Your Power DVDs at AFP Store.

Gas-powered cars are out. How long will that train trip from DC to LA take? And if China continues its relentless rise in carbon emissions until 2030, as permitted by the Paris climate accord, while the U.S. spends itself into bankruptcy going green, where would that leave America and China at midcentury?

“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” tweeted the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel: “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”

The Green New Deal, say its authors, has as a goal “stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, the elderly, the unhoused, peoples with disabilities, and youth.”

Fifty years after the Great Society, apparently half the country consists of victims of oppression.

Who are their oppressors? Guess.

Among the endorsers of this Green New Deal is Sen. Cory Booker, who compares the battle to stop climate change to fighting the Nazis in World War II. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren have all endorsed it. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls climate change “an existential threat,” was an original co-sponsor.

Nancy Pelosi has more sense. Interviewed last week, the speaker batted the Green New Deal aside: “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

Coddling of the American Mind
New at AFP’s Online Store.

With her own agenda and priorities, Pelosi does not want to be dragged into having to defend a document that reads like it was written by the college socialists club.

The question, though, is why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.

In a presidential election, the “out” party candidate usually has an advantage. No record to defend. He or she can choose the terrain on which to attack the incumbent, who has a four-year record.

Rarely does an out party present a fixed and stationary target as exposed as this, as out-of the-mainstream as this, as vulnerable as this.

The only explanation for the endorsement of the Green New Deal by candidates with a prospect of winning the Democratic nomination is that they are so fearful of Ocasio-Cortez and the left for whom she speaks that they must endorse her plan.

That British Tory got it right. This thing reads like a Democratic Party suicide pact.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.


The Women’s March You Won’t Hear About

Hysterical leftists condemn a women’s group, which organized one of the recent women’s marches on New York City, for demanding rights for women of all races. Here’s more about the organization working for the advancement of all women—regardless of race, religion, creed, or party affiliation.

By Tilton Adler

On Jan. 19, neither frigid winds nor freezing temperatures could prevent 200,000 activists from gathering near Central Park West for the third annual Women’s March Alliance (WMA) rally in New York City. Demonstrating for the advancement of all women—regardless of race, religion, creed, or party affiliation—this particular women’s march was a welcome alternative to the women’s demonstrations organized by the far left that news cycles would lead you to believe are the only scene in town.

Ironically, elsewhere in the city—scheduled intentionally to compete with the WMA rally—Women’s March Inc. (WMI) gathered to present to the media the image of radical, shrieking women that so many in America have grown accustomed to seeing.

What this meant was that two different marches were held by two very different organizations—yet they were presented to the viewing public as being one event. It’s no wonder there is rampant confusion surrounding today’s women’s rights movement.

WMA represents conservative women and men who feel that liberals and the WMI have gone way too far to the left. Perhaps an unintended consequence of the #MeToo movement, many supporters are increasingly frustrated with fringe progressives and in-your-face radical liberals who have largely characterized the women’s movement to end sexual harassment, among other issues. Instead of demonizing long-accepted gender definitions and painting all men as evil, WMA’s goal is to represent those who feel their voices have been drowned out by the radical left.

Protesters’ signs ranged from “Why I March: Corruption-Racism-Climate Change-Human Rights” to “No One Is Free When Others Are Oppressed.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The organization is being spearheaded by Katherine Siemionko, who was raised in a conservative Christian household, which voted for Trump. She is university educated and has 15 years of experience in corporate America as a former vice president with Goldman Sachs.

In 2017, Siemionko organized the first Women’s March on New York City and shortly thereafter left behind the oppressive corporate glass ceiling to form the non-profit WMA.

Yet, despite her experience and fervent work advocating for all women’s rights, she has faced heavy criticism from the activist left for being a white woman and has even been accused of not standing for “real” women, as she “can’t understand their strife.”

Siemionko responds to this false assertion in a video interview with news and commentary website “Vice News”: “We have to stop looking at each other as skin colors. . . . I see that as a copout, the moment you say, ‘You’re white; therefore, you’re racist.’ . . . It’s overly politically correct. Your speech is inhibited by this concept that any words you say may offend somebody. If we continue to nitpick, we will never advance as a society. The left has to stop eating itself.”

This hasn’t stopped the radical leftist WMI from continuing to attack WMA. In what has become a “she said/she said” social media battle, the women’s movement in general has been accused of petering out, of becoming distracted, and of losing focus.

WMA refutes this accusation and notes the mainstream media is doing more harm than good by reporting only on the hysterical, far-left organizers as if they represent all women.

The future remains uncertain for the WMA, but Siemionko says she will likely organize the 2020 march to coincide with International Women’s Day and hopes to end the political partisanship that has been associated with the movement.

Siemionko believes there is room for conservatives and liberals in this movement with no strings attached.

Tilton Adler is a freelance author based in Florida.

Famed GOP Operative Targeted by Mueller’s Deep State Goons

In an outrageous pre-dawn SWAT-style raid, Roger Stone was arrested as if he was a violent fugitive determined to flee. The seven-count indictment Mueller has finally concocted features charges of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. 

By Donald Jeffries

Roger Stone was scheduled to be on this writer’s radio show on Friday, Jan. 25. As it turned out, the events of that morning made his appearance impossible.

Hidden History, Jeffries
Exposing modern crimes, conspiracies and political coverups at the AFP Online Store!

In a pre-dawn SWAT-style raid on Stone’s Fort Lauderdale, Fla. home, America’s militarized police force dragged the 66-year-old and his 72-year-old wife outside in their nightclothes. Stone was not a dangerous serial killer. He was not wanted for any violent crime. He had instead been indicted the previous day by a grand jury on extremely spurious process charges as part of Robert Mueller’s Deep State-fueled witch hunt into Russian “collusion” in the 2016 presidential election.

“At the crack of dawn, 29 FBI agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles, with lights flashing, when they could have contacted my lawyer,” Stone declared after a court appearance later that Friday.

“A SWAT team, searching the house, scaring his wife, scaring his dogs—it was completely unnecessary,” Stone’s attorney Bruce Rogow said. “A telephone call would have done the job, and he would have appeared. Mr. Stone has nothing to hide.”

Rogow accurately called the arrest a “spectacle,” and the charade continued in the hearing later that day in a Fort Lauderdale courthouse, where the nonviolent political operative was shackled around the waist, wrist, and ankles.

The seven-count indictment, featuring charges of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice, continued to push the fantasy that shadowy, unnamed Russian figures hacked into emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and then shared them with WikiLeaks. As always, what was revealed in those emails is glossed over by our toothless, state-controlled mainstream media. The very real collusion to deny Bernie Sanders the Democratic Party nomination, in order to benefit Deep State queen Hillary Clinton, has been twisted and distorted into “Russians” conspiring with Trump officials to deny Clinton the presidency. Julian Assange has all but named former DNC staffer Seth Rich as the individual who leaked the emails, before he was murdered for no logical motive in Washington, D.C.

The militarized assault on Stone’s residence evoked memories of the government attack on the Branch Davidians’ group home (repeatedly referred to as a “compound” in the fake news media) in 1993. The pre-dawn timing reminded the few Americans left who understand real history of the kind of tyranny that was routine under President Abraham Lincoln.

While there was little criticism of the armed attack in the kept press, President Donald Trump took to Twitter and proclaimed, “Greatest witch hunt in the history of our country! No collusion! Border coyotes, drug dealers, and human traffickers are treated better. Who alerted CNN to be there?” Trump referred to the extremely suspicious fact that the most overtly anti-Trump media outlet had seemingly been tipped off about the raid, and were on hand at such an uncustomary hour to capture exclusive, dramatic footage.

Many conservatives were justifiably outraged.

“You don’t have to be a Roger Stone fan to be horrified by the stunt the FBI pulled off in conspiring with CNN this morning,” Jordan Schachtel of Blaze TV tweeted. “The completely unnecessary raid is a routine that is straight out of a third-world police state. There is no defense of such an excessive show of force.”

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

This was nothing new during Mueller’s swamp-supported “investigation.” A source had told Fox News, during the earlier raid on former Trump associate Paul Manafort, that the dozen agents involved were “designed to intimidate.” Former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova stated, “I am appalled that the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have permitted a vindictive use of arrest in a non-violent case with a defendant who was willing to surrender.”

The establishment, as always, rallied around the Deep State flag. “It is no conspiracy,” longtime television talking head and legal analyst Greta Van Susteren assured the masses on Twitter. An unnamed federal law enforcement source told Fox News that the operation was “standard” and “nothing out of the ordinary.” The New Republic headlined a story “The False Martyrdom of Roger Stone.” Other outlets mocked the “selective outrage” on the right. The cretinous John Podesta gloated in a Washington Post article that, “I admit I smiled when Roger Stone’s arrest was announced. . . .” Many reports used the disparaging term “dirty trickster” in describing Stone.

Stone remained defiant.

“I’m 66 years old,” he said following his arrest. “I do not own a gun, I do not have a valid passport, I have no prior criminal record, I’m charged with nonviolent process crimes. I believe this is a politically motivated investigation. There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies.”

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

Antifa Leader Arrested, Charged With Terrorism

An attack on U.S. Marines by neo-Bolsheviks will not go unpunished—this time. Finally, law enforcement has arrested a well-known antifa leader, charged with multiple felonies, for his blatant acts of political violence and terrorism.

By John Friend

A prominent leader of the radical, violent, far-left antifa group in Washington, D.C. was recently arrested and charged with multiple felonies related to an attack on two U.S. Marines in Philadelphia in November of last year.

Joseph “Jose” Alcoff, more commonly known as “Chepe” in antifa circles, was arrested and charged with 17 offenses relating to the unprovoked attack on his perceived political adversaries, a common strategy employed by radical antifa activists whose blatant acts of political violence and terrorism have been largely covered up and downplayed by the mainstream mass media.

In the past few years, law enforcement officials have largely failed to adequately investigate and prosecute crimes committed by radical leftwing activists, including violence carried out by antifa groups against their political rivals, particularly since the heated 2016 election season.

In a positive development, Alcoff was charged with “multiple counts of aggravated assault, ethnic intimidation, conspiracy, and terroristic threats, and one count of robbery while inflicting serious bodily injury,” according to Andrew Kerr, an investigative reporter for “The Daily Caller,” a conservative media outlet that has commendably covered leftwing political violence and criminality. Kerr’s reporting played an instrumental role in the prosecution of Alcoff.

Intimidation Game, Strassel
Political correspondent Kim Strassel on increasing intimidation by the Left to bully Americans out of free speech. On sale now.

During the violent confrontation, one of the Marines, Alejandro Godinez, shouted at the mob of antifa activists, which included Alcoff, “I’m Mexican!” after the antifa radicals began verbally abusing the Marines and accusing them of being “Nazis” and supporting white supremacy and racism. Alcoff and his associates then began calling Godinez a “spic” and a “wetback,” derogatory ethnic slurs against Mexicans, according to Godinez’s court testimony.

Incredibly, for years Alcoff had been living a double life as a campaign manager for a prominent D.C.-based non-profit group called Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) while also being a leader for Smash Racism DC, an infamous antifa group that has been responsible for numerous acts of political violence, intimidation, and outright terrorism. Smash Racism DC played a major role in organizing a protest outside Fox News personality Tucker Carlson’s home in Washington, D.C. late last year. They were also involved in the high-profile confrontation of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a D.C.-based restaurant, which made national headlines last year as well.

Alcoff has been associated with several high-profile Democrats over the years due to his work with the progressive nonprofit organization.

According to Kerr, “Alcoff was quoted in press releases from Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, appeared at an event with Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in March, and has been pictured alongside Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters.”

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

Brad Griffin, a leading conservative commentator and blogger who has also been exposing the violent shenanigans of the radical left, praised the prosecution of Alcoff in a recent blog post highlighting his arrest despite federal authorities’ failure to pursue federal charges that have been leveled against rightwing activists.

“It sure is strange that the FBI and the DOJ don’t seem to be that interested in this incident, which involved multiple antifa cells engaging in a violent hate crime,” Griffin commented.

Numerous rightwing activists, including members of the Rise Above Movement, have been charged with federal conspiracy to riot charges as well as other federal offenses for their participation in various political rallies over the course of the past year or so. Similar federal charges have thus far failed to materialize against radical leftwing activists.

Alcoff’s arrest, however, is a step in the right direction for those who care about the rule of law and political freedom in the United States of America in 2019.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Audio: The October Surprise, With Barbara Honegger

AFP is pleased to offer our readers another excellent interview from writer and radio show host S.T. Patrick’s Midnight Writer News Show.

Episode 106, “The October Surprise, With Barbara Honegger”

Barbara Honegger joins S.T. Patrick to discuss her book The October Surprise: Did the Reagan-Bush Election Campaign Sabotage President Carter’s Attempts to Free the American Hostages in Iran?

Honegger discusses her work and associations within the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign and her position at the White House from 1981-1983.

Why is the October Surprise important today? Whom did she most admire in the Reagan White House? When did she first suspect a secret deal had been made? Was there a 53rd hostage? Why is the situation called the October Surprise? How and at what point were the Israelis brought into the arms transactions? Who was William Casey in 1980? What was the importance of Houshang Lavi? Did Carter believe he had a secret deal, himself, in October 1980? What happened at the seminal Paris meeting in October 1980? And so much more!

SPLC Sued Again

AFP’s front-page article of Issue 7&8 covers the good news that the world’s premier “hate arbiter” is being challenged in court yet again. If you’re an AFP Online subscriber, log in here to read your paper now. If you’re not yet a subscriber to American Free Press click here to review print and/or digital subscription options (and don’t miss this special offer for one-year subscriptions or renewals).

By John Friend

Gavin McInnes, the popular political pundit and cofounder of Vice Media who worked at the outlet until 2008, is suing the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for maliciously targeting the outspoken and politically incorrect host and comedian for unspecified damages, it was recently reported.

McInnes, who also founded the Proud Boys, a pro-Western fraternal organization that has been hysterically demonized by the mass media and radical leftwing groups, has been a target of the SPLC for years.

The federal civil suit, filed in the Middle District of Alabama where the SPLC is headquartered, argues that the SPLC has targeted McInnes and his associates for “personal and professional destruction” in order to achieve “the SPLC’s own ideological, political, and financial (i.e., fundraising) ends.”

“The primary method SPLC uses to achieve its goals and those of its donors is by identifying activists, political figures, and groups as targets or enemies of society and designating its enemies ‘extremists,’ ‘white supremacists,’ ‘hate groups,’ and the like,” the lawsuit argues.

The SPLC designates its political and ideological enemies as “hate groups” in order to “cause its victims to be ‘deplatformed,’ or deprived of access to online and inperson venues in which they were, prior to being deplatformed, able to express their views to those who choose to listen, or ‘defunded,’ meaning blocked from access from both social-based-crowdfunding sources and payment processors,” according to the suit.

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

As a result of pressure from the SPLC and other leftwing media outlets, McInnes and the Proud Boys organization have been banned from a number of popular social media outlets, including Twitter and Facebook, as well as online payment processors such as PayPal.

The lawsuit correctly describes the SPLC as a “self-appointed enforcer” of cultural and political orthodoxy and argues that it uses its power and influence in society to maliciously target its political rivals.

In a letter to supporters, SPLC President Richard Cohen argues that McInnes’s suit is an attempt to “deny us our First Amendment rights” and that the suit “has no merit.”

“The fact that he’s upset tells us that we’re doing our job exposing hate and extremism,” Cohen states in the letter.

McInnes joins a growing list of individuals and organizations that have or are currently suing the SPLC, one of the most influential leftwing smear groups operating in America.

Last summer, the SPLC settled a lawsuit brought against the group by Maajid Nawaz and his anti-extremism organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for $3.375 million, a major setback for the radical, un-American organization. The SPLC is also currently being sued by attorney Glen Allen for maliciously targeting him, which resulted in Allen’s outrageous termination as an attorney for the City of Baltimore, a job he had performed in exemplary fashion—fighting for justice for people of all colors, creeds, and religions without a single complaint—for many years.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.