Hypocrites in D.C. Cover for Deviants?

If Roy Moore were an insider, Congress would probably ignore the recent allegations of sexual impropriety against him. As a populist he poses a far greater threat to the GOP business-as-usual. 

By Sophia Meyer

Accusations of sexual impropriety with teenage girls—and now a claim of attempted rape—continue to mount against former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Best known for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments statue from his courthouse and for ordering state probate judges to deny same-sex marriage licenses, Moore is currently the GOP candidate for the Alabama Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.

Republican politicians and pundits are quickly distancing themselves from Moore, but it seems clear that they are more motivated by the threat Moore poses to their leadership than a desire to stop sexual perversion given the GOP leadership’s past support for deviants.

In a Nov. 9 Washington Post article, three women claimed Moore inappropriately flirted with them when they were between 14 and 18 years old. Another woman, the article disclosed, also claims Moore sexually touched her when she was 14. At the time, Moore was an assistant district attorney in his early 30s.

Three of Moore’s four accusers told the Post they found his flirtation “flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older.” With Moore having just won the primary, they’ve apparently become troubled enough to publicly accuse him.

Moore immediately denied the allegations, calling them politically motivated, and threatened to sue the Post and other newspapers reporting what he is calling “libelous” news.

Liberty Stickers

At a Nov. 13 press conference, another woman accused Moore of attempted rape when she was 15, reports “The Daily Beast.” Beverly Young Nelson said Moore choked her as he attempted to remove her clothes, then warned her when she escaped from his car not to tell anyone because she would not be believed. “You are a child. I am the District Attorney of Etowah County,” he said. And on Nov. 15, two more women accused Moore of inappropriately pursuing them as teens.

The Washington Times reports “Republicans in Washington have gone to war” with Moore. With Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leading the charge, politicians from Mitt Romney to Ohio Gov. John Kasich to Sen. John McCain, (Ariz.), Sen. Pat Toomey (Penn.), and Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) are calling for Moore to “step aside.”

The White House, via statements from Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, maintains the position that if the allegations are proven true, Moore should step down.

Even President Donald Trump’s former advisor Steve Bannon of “Breitbart News” is beginning to indicate he may abandon the Moore campaign ship. Publicly, Bannon said on Monday, “This is just another desperate attempt by Mitch McConnell to keep power, and it’s not going to work.” But “The Daily Beast” reports Bannon’s private conversations are not nearly as supportive.

When it comes to the Senate seat, the GOP establishment initially supported Moore’s strongest opponent, Sen. Luther Strange. A longtime “good old boy,” Strange was a safe choice for those who want to maintain GOP politics-as-usual. The populist Moore, on the other hand, had the backing of Bannon and his fellow anti-establishment Republicans at Breitbart. Growing support for populist-leaning, America-first candidates poses a significant threat to the GOP establishment.

IRS Loses Cases

Thus, it seems likely mainstream Republicans’ immediate demands for Moore’s withdrawal may have much more to do with the potential threat to their control than any concern over his perceived ethical shortcomings or even criminal behavior. After all, the GOP has a history of avoiding, denying, and even covering up the sexual crimes and deviancy within their own party.

  • Speaker of the House and pedophile Denny Hastert (Ill.) paid $3.5 million in hush-money to buy a former student’s silence and eventually admitted in court to sexually abusing boys while he was a high school wrestling coach. Yet before his sentencing, 41 people including former congressmen, a former CIA chief and Tom Delay, former House Majority Leader, wrote to the judge requesting leniency for Hastert.
  • Florida Rep. Mark Foley, an outspoken crusader against child pornography, resigned after his penchant for exchanging sexually explicit messages and photos with young male congressional aides came to light. Ironically, Foley’s resignation was tendered in response to a threat from Hastert to “resign or be expelled” when it became clear leadership could no longer maintain silence on his perversions.

Hastert and Foley are only two obvious examples, but there are many more who demonstrate that the Republican leadership is more interested in power and money than doing what is right for the country.

Yet another example of corruption and sexual perversion in the GOP is former Utah Sen. Larry Craig. In 2007, Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis airport after he propositioned a male undercover police officer for illicit acts in a men’s bathroom. At first, Craig pled guilty to the crime and said he would resign from his position. Shortly thereafter, he changed his mind and said he planned to stay. He was allowed to serve out the rest of his term in the Senate but did not seek re-election. While certain members of the Senate did condemn Craig for his actions, Sen. Mitch Mc-Connell, who was Senate minority leader, only questioned whether Craig should hold leadership positions in committees.

Other notable Republican deviants include:

  • Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who was outed by the infamous D.C. Madam for hiring prostitutes;
  • Indiana state Rep. Phillip Hinkle, who was busted after he paid an 18-year-old man for illicit acts;
  • Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who had multiple affairs with women while married; and
  • Chris Meyers, the ex-mayor of Redford, N.J., who was outed in the national press for paying men for illicit acts.

None of these men faced the level of condemnation that Moore has so far, leading objective observers to deduce that Moore’s populist, America-first leanings are more concerning to Republican leaders than any sexual improprieties he may have committed.

Sophia Meyer is a freelance journalist, proofreader and web editor based in Florida. She welcomes your comments. Please send her a letter c/o AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774.




Obama DoJ Funneled Money to Leftists

Emails written by President Obama’s Department of Justice confirm the administration forced predatory banks to pay $1 billion, which was then funneled to the Clinton Foundation and some of the administration’s favorite radical groups.

By Allen West

The House Intelligence Committee announced recently that it would be conducting an investigation of “Uranium One,” as the issue is being called. To summarize: Somehow the Obama administration, through the Hillary Clinton State Department, approved the sale of 20% of the U.S.’s uranium stock to a Russian company that was being investigated. Suspiciously, some “interesting” monetary deposits were made to the Clinton Foundation, along with a $500,000 speaker’s fee to Bill Clinton, coinciding with the uranium sale.

But what if “Uranium One” wasn’t just the Clinton Foundation running a pay-for-play scheme in conjunction with the Obama administration? What if the Obama administration itself, through its Department of Justice (DoJ), was running a shakedown scheme?

As reported by the Daily Caller:

Emails written by Obama administration Department of Justice officials confirm reports the agency engaged in a systemic effort to funnel money to liberal advocacy organizations from settlements reached with big banks.

The documents, obtained by the House Judiciary Committee as part of an ongoing investigation, reveal the Obama Justice Department effectively skirted Congress’s budgetary authority by requiring that major financial institutions donate to a group of affordable housing nonprofits and legal advocacy organizations as part of settlement agreements resulting from predatory mortgage lending practices.

The internal DoJ documents represent the latest revelation in a two-year investigation spearheaded by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

The investigation has thus far yielded evidence implicating the Obama DoJ in using mandatory donations to funnel roughly $1 billion in settlement money to activist groups, including the National Council of La Raza, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the National Urban League. The list of third party organizations were unrelated to the legal settlements, except through general claims that they would use the funds to aid the low-income Americans most severely harmed by predatory lending practices.

IRS Loses Cases

Let’s have a little history lesson here. First of all, the whole mortgage meltdown of 2008 can be traced back to President Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, based on his belief that every American has a right to own a home—another example of government interjecting itself in our lives, not to allow us to “pursue our happiness” but instead trying to “guarantee our happiness.” The end result was government forcing itself into a private-sector market, in this case the mortgage industry, as well as enacting punitive measures against private-sector lending institutions that did not comply and conduct risky business endeavors.

Yes, the private sector lending institutions did wrong in creating the mortgage-backed securities that were sold, knowing they weren’t strong or profitable. The end result was the sub-prime mortgage-lending crisis and the revelation that these mortgage-backed securities were worthless. However, this crisis could have been averted had the government never ventured into the mortgage industry in the first place. The same government also used its power to attempt to force lending institutions to take on highly risky endeavors. And yes, many lending institutions that believed they could make money enacted even worse practices, what the government termed “predatory lending.” The whole scheme, crafted by government in the first place, should never have been unleashed.

Along comes Barack Obama, who adeptly used his bully pulpit to demonize lending institutions instead of telling the whole truth, willingly aided by a compliant ally, the liberal progressive media. Obama and his lead henchman at DoJ, Eric Holder, levied fines against these financial lending institutions, not in an attempt to correct the wrong but for far more nefarious purposes.

The community-organizer-in-chief then funneled funds from the penalties levied against these financial institutions to his administration’s preferred progressive socialist organizations. While this has previously been suspected, it is now confirmed.

Bottom line: The Obama administration was running a shakedown of financial institutions that sought to settle instead of going through the legal “kangaroo court” of Holder’s DoJ. One is reminded of when, during his election night victory speech, Obama infamously said: “Chicago is coming to Washington, D.C.” Now we truly know what that meant: The same style of gangster mentality that once ruled the streets of Chicago, Al Capone-style, was heading to our nation’s capital.

It seems safe to assume this story won’t be receiving much, if any, attention from the liberal progressive media. For them, this isn’t anything upsetting—just another example of their cronyism, elitism, and corruption and why we can never allow the progressive socialists of the Democrat Party to have control and power in our government.

Americans can never accept this type of behavior, which is reflective of a Third-World banana republic, not our constitutional republic. Anyone who engages in this type of disgusting behavior is indeed a threat to the country and to the rule of law.

Allen Bernard West is an American political commentator, retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and former member of the House of Representatives.




Israeli Interests Come Before Recovery

The extensive destruction wrought by Hurricane Harvey has shone a light on a Texas law that prohibits the State from contracting with firms that engage in boycott, divest and sanctions (BDS) actions against Israel. But allotting contracts only after requiring the equivalent of a “loyalty oath” from companies wanting to assist storm-beleaguered Texans is eerily reminiscent of McCarthyism. Dave Gahary and Mark Dankof recently discussed the state’s outrageous anti-BDS law—listen in at the link below. 

By Dave Gahary

If there are still folks out there who question the allegiance of American politicians, all one need do is look to Dickinson, Texas (population around 19,000), where the city elders demanded that denizens who wished rebuilding funds to rectify Hurricane Harvey’s destruction “certify in writing that they will not take part in a boycott of Israel.”

AFP Podcast

Hurricane Harvey, the costliest tropical cyclone on record and the second-costliest ($150 billion to $190 billion) natural disaster worldwide, drenched eastern Texas over a four-day period in late August with nearly 65 inches of rain in some areas, which caused catastrophic flooding that destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes, displaced more than 30,000 people, and necessitated over 17,000 rescues.

To force beaten-down Americans to grovel for emergency funds after a disaster of this magnitude may be par for the bureaucratic course, but to require they pledge an oath of fealty to a foreign country in order to get those funds is beyond the pale.

But Israel, as American Free Press readers are painfully aware, has never been short of chutzpah—the Yiddish “audacity,” used to describe someone or something that has overstepped the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

The city’s “Hurricane Harvey Repair Grant Application and Agreement” required that applicants agree to follow building codes, apply for the necessary permits, use funds solely for their project, and—incredibly—pledge to not boycott Israel.

Section 11 stated: “By executing this agreement below, the applicant verifies that the applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this agreement.”

Yes, folks, that’s really what it stated, not states, because the outrage this requirement generated forced Dickinson to reconsider its demand. This “strange stipulation” even had the fake news media raising their collective eyebrows, with a staunchly Zionist Time magazine headline blaring, “A Texas City Will Only Give You Hurricane Aid If You Promise Not to Boycott Israel.”

Most likely, Dickinson finally cried “uncle” when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) weighed in. ACLU of Texas Legal Director Andre Segura stated:

The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to boycott, and the government cannot condition hurricane relief or any other public benefit on a commitment to refrain from protected political expression. Dickinson’s requirement is an egregious violation of the First Amendment, reminiscent of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths requiring Americans to disavow membership in the Communist party and other forms of “subversive” activity.

The ACLU pointed out in a news story Oct. 19 that the Supreme Court “ruled decades ago that political boycotts are protected by the First Amendment, and other decisions have established that the government may not require individuals to sign a certification regarding their political expression in order to obtain employment, contracts, or other benefits.”

The news story also mentions the ACLU “filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Kansas law on behalf of a high school math teacher who is being required by the state to certify that she won’t boycott Israel if she wants to take part in a teacher training program,” and that the organization had “sent a letter to members of Congress opposing a bill that would make it a felony to support certain boycotts of companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.”

Dickinson claimed the city was just following the law in Texas, referring to H.B. 89, which was passed by the Texas House on April 20 (voting 131 to 0 with 12 present, not voting) and the Texas Senate on April 27 (voting 27 to 4), and signed by Gov. Greg Abbott on May 2. This act took effect on Sept. 1. Significantly, the law is aimed at companies, using the language, “Prohibition on Contracts with Companies Boycotting Israel”; Dickinson’s demand that individuals follow the law was fraught with trouble.

Abbott—like many U.S. politicians who want to keep the Israel lobby’s spigot aimed at their campaign coffers—groveled to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem in January 2016, openly stating that he wanted Texas legislators to pass such a ban.

He got his wish, and crowed “any anti-Israel policy is an anti-Texas policy” when he signed the clearly unconstitutional bill into law. Shamelessly kissing Israel’s backside even further, he posted on his official website, “Anti-Israel policies are anti- Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally.”

Yes, this is all true, dear reader. Whoever can kiss Israel’s butt the best wins a prize! If it wasn’t so un-American it might be funny. But it’s not, as it’s a threat to our God-given freedoms. What’s worse is that this law is similar to existing laws in at least 22 other states, leaving only 27 states to go. The United States of Israel, anyone?

What’s behind the nationwide push to protect “our greatest ally” is the success of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), created in 2005 “to increase economic and political pressure on Israel to end what it describes as violations of international law.” BDS seeks “the end of Israel’s occupation and settler colonization of Palestinian land and the Golan Heights, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and acknowledgement of the right of return of Palestinian refugees.”

AFP asked Mark Dankof, a Texas resident and U.S. Senate candidate, for his views on H.B. 89. [Listen to the full interview with Dankof at the podcast link above.]

“Here in Texas, sadly enough,” Dankof told AFP, “what we refer to as the ‘conservative movement’ is, in many cases, nothing of the type. If you look at the Republican Party state platform of Texas, it’s solidly Zionist, it’s solidly globalist and interventionist, and it’s something that could have been easily penned by Netanyahu himself.

“The notion that any state government, much less the federal government,” he concluded, “should be able to say to any legitimately incorporated business in the United States that they have to sign off, officially, in support of Mr. Netanyahu’s policies—many of which the United States government says are a violation of international law—[is ludicrous].”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.




That Bloodbath in the Old Dominion

Pat Buchanan offers sage advice for the GOP and a historical reminder, given Republican losses in this week’s Virginia elections. 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

The day after his “Silent Majority” speech on Nov. 3, 1969, calling on Americans to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam, Richard Nixon’s GOP captured the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey.

By December, Nixon had reached 68% approval in the Gallup Poll, though, a year earlier, he had won but 43% of the vote.

Contrast Nixon’s numbers with President Trump’s.

Where Trump won 46% of the vote against Hillary Clinton, his approval rating is now nearly 10 points below that. He has less support today than on the day he was elected, or inaugurated.

Tens of millions of Americans are passionately for Trump, and tens of millions are passionately against him. The GOP problem: The latter cohort is equal in intensity but larger in number, and this is especially true in purple and blue states like the commonwealth of Virginia.

There is no way to spin Tuesday as other than a Little Bighorn, and possible harbinger of what is to come.

In George Washington’s hometown of Alexandria and Arlington County, Democratic candidate Ralph Northam won 4-1. In Fairfax and Loudoun counties, the most populous D.C. suburbs, Northam won 2-1.

In the rural counties, however, Republican Ed Gillespie rolled up the landslides.

As there are two Americas, there are two Virginias.

Consider. Of all the delegate seats in the Virginia assembly allocated to Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, the GOP can today claim only one.

Northern Virginia is taking on the political and socioeconomic profile of San Francisco.

Another and perhaps insoluble problem for the GOP, not only in the Old Dominion, is demography.

Democrats rolled up their largest margins among African-Americans, Hispanics, single women, immigrants and the young. And these voting blocs are growing.

Gillespie ran up his largest margins among white males near and past retirement age and married white women. These Middle Americans are in inexorable demographic decline.

The Greatest Generation is passing on, and baby boomers born between 1946 and 1951 are now on Medicare and Social Security.

Yet reports of the GOP’s demise are grossly exaggerated.

Though Gillespie lost by nine points, Jill Vogel, who ran for lieutenant governor on Trumpian issues, lost by six.

By 2-1, Virginians do not want their Confederate monuments torn down. Northam, sensing this, moved toward Gillespie’s position as the campaign went on. Also, among the 27% of Virginians who regarded taxes and immigration as the top issues, Gillespie won by nearly 4-1.

It was health care concerns, the No. 1 issue, that buried the GOP.

As for mainstream media rage and revulsion at the “racism” of Gillespie ads suggesting Northam supported sanctuary cities and was soft on the MS-13 gang, this reflects an abiding establishment fear of the Trumpian issues of illegal immigration and crime.

Then there was the Republican messenger.

A former chairman of the RNC, Washington lobbyist and White House aide, Gillespie is an establishment Republican unconvincing in the role of a fighting populist conservative. His speeches recalled not Trump’s run, but that of the Republicans Trump trounced.

Ed Gillespie was Virginia’s version of Jeb Bush.

Message from the Old Dominion: A purple state, trending blue, with its economy recession-proof as long as Uncle Sam across the river consumes 20% of GDP, is a steepening climb for the GOP. You must have a superior candidate, comfortable with cutting issues, to win it now.

Republicans are being admonished to drop the monuments-and-memorials issue and respect why NFL players might want to “take a knee” during the national anthem.

But if to win in Northern Virginia the GOP must move closer to the Democratic Party, why would the rest of the state want to vote for the Republican Party?

During the campaign, both candidates moved rightward.

Northam rejected sanctuary cities and accepted Lee and Jackson on Richmond’s Monument Avenue, and Gillespie ran Trumpian ads, even if they seemed to clash with the mild-mannered candidate himself.

The lesson for 2018:

While the solid support of Trumpians is indispensable for GOP victory, it is insufficient for GOP victory. Republican candidates will have to decide how close they wish to get to President Trump, or how far away they can risk going and survive.

Facing this choice, Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker decided to pack it in. Other Republicans may follow. But a house divided will not stand.

Republicans should recall that off-year elections are often problematic for incumbent parties. In 1954, President Eisenhower lost both houses of Congress. After pardoning Nixon in 1974, Gerald Ford lost 49 seats. In 1982, Ronald Reagan sustained a 27-seat loss.

In 1994, Bill Clinton lost 53 seats and control of the House. In 2010, Barack Obama lost 63 seats and control of the House.

If the nation chooses to turn Congress over to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in 2018, will that be all Trump’s fault? Or should perhaps some credit go to Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and venerable political tradition?

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



GOP Tax Plan Increases the Most Insidious Tax

Appointing a former investment banker to chair the Federal Reserve will have much longer lasting impact than any tax reform plan, but adopting the Chained Consumer Price Index will increase the inflation tax, Dr. Paul explains. 

By Ron Paul

Last Thursday, congressional Republicans unveiled their tax reform legislation. On the same day, President Trump nominated current Federal Reserve Board Governor Jerome Powell to succeed Janet Yellen as Federal Reserve chair. While the tax plan dominated the headlines, the Powell appointment will have much greater long-term impact. Federal Reserve policies affect every aspect of the economy, including whether the Republican tax plan will produce long-term economic growth.

President Obama made history by appointing the first female Fed chair. President Trump is also making history: If confirmed, Powell would be the first former investment banker to serve as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Powell’s background suggests he will continue Janet Yellen’s Wall Street-friendly low interest rates and easy money policies.

Powell is an outspoken opponent of the Audit the Fed legislation. In 2015, Powell delivered an address at Catholic University devoted to attacking Audit the Fed. Like most Fed apologists, Powell claims the audit would compromise the Fed’s independence and allow Congress to control monetary policy. However, like all who make this claim, Powell cannot point to anything in the text of the audit bill giving Congress any power over the Federal Reserve. Powell’s concerns about protecting the Fed’s independence are misplaced, as the Fed has never been free of political influence. The Fed has a long history of bowing to presidential pressure to tailor monetary policy to help advance the president’s political and policy agenda.

IRS Loses Cases

 

The Republican tax cut plan has some positive elements, such as increasing the standard deduction, creating a new family tax credit, eliminating the death tax, reducing the corporate tax rate, and lowering taxes on small businesses. It also has some flaws, such as the “millionaire surcharge” imposed on upper-income taxpayers. This provision reflects a belief that upper-income taxpayers only “deserve” a tax break if reducing their taxes serves the interest of government by increasing economic growth.

The worst part of the tax plan is that it adopts the chained consumer price index (chained CPI). Chained CPI is a way of measuring CPI that understates inflation’s effects on our standard of living. It does this by assuming inflation has not reduced Americans’ standard of living if, for example, people can buy hamburgers when they can no longer afford steak. This so-called full substitution ignores the fact that if individuals viewed hamburgers as a full substitute for steak they would have bought hamburgers before Fed-created inflation made steak unaffordable.

Chained CPI increases the inflation tax. The inflation tax may be the worst of all taxes because it is hidden and regressive. The inflation tax is not even a tax on real wages. Instead, it is a tax on the illusionary gains in income caused by inflation. The use of chained CPI to adjust tax brackets pushes individuals into higher tax brackets over time.

Politicians love the inflation tax because it allows them to increase taxes without having to vote for higher rates. Instead, the Fed does the dirty work. Since their creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve and the income tax have both enabled the growth of the welfare-warfare state and the erosion of our freedom and economic well-being. The key to restoring our liberty and prosperity, as well as avoiding a major economic crisis, is reversing the great mistakes of 1913 by repealing the 16th Amendment and auditing and ending the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, online at www.ronpaulinstitute.org.




Top-Tier Treason and the USS Liberty

In his new book, Remember the Liberty! Almost Sunk by Treason on the High Seas, Philip F. Nelson has documented U.S. treason at the highest levels of government in a planned false-flag operation that called for Israel’s high-seas slaughter of USS Liberty sailors on June 6, 1967.  

By S.T. Patrick

Phillip F. Nelson’s new book, Remember the Liberty! Almost Sunk by Treason on the High Seas,* seeks to out the American politicians responsible for the planning, execution, and cover-up of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. In tracing the planning of the June 8 attack back to 1965, Nelson has written a work that holds President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara responsible.

In 1979 Liberty survivor James M. Ennes Jr. wrote the first full treatment concerning the Israeli assault on the unarmed U.S. naval ship. After the release of his book, Ennes pursued further research at the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas. Within that research, Ennes found a misfiled document that detailed the minutes of a meeting held by a “303 Committee” in April 1967. The 303 Committee was responsible for all covert CIA operations within the Johnson administration.

The 303 Committee consisted of CIA director Richard Helms, former ambassador to the Soviet Union Foy Kohler, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Earle Wheeler, Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance, and National Security Adviser Walt Rostow. Rostow also headed a separate White House group that consisted of Johnson’s most adamantly Zionist advisors.

McNamara was often used by LBJ as the key liaison and chief executioner of the covert operations birthed by the 303 Committee and the other groups.

The minutes of the 303 Committee meeting—held two months before the attack on the Liberty—referenced an operation called “Frontlet 615.” Operation Cyanide was found within the subparts of Frontlet 615. The 303 Committee used Frontlet 615 as a code name for the pending Six-Day War between Israel and Egypt. As planned, the war was scheduled to begin on June 15. The Americans had agreed to provide equipment, officer training, and the limited use of aircraft to the Israelis.

Operation Cyanide was a provocative false flag that called for an Israel Defense Force attack on a U.S. ship. The assault on the unarmed ship would use unmarked fighter jets so that the destruction could then be blamed on the Egyptians, and the Americans could enter the war on the side of Israel.

It was not the first time Johnson had dabbled in false-flag operations. Years earlier, he had tasked National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy with “Plan 34A” in Vietnam. Buddy was charged with constructing a series of provocations that would cause the North Vietnamese to attack American destroyers (i.e., Gulf of Tonkin). Some historians cite Tonkin as the primary reason for Johnson’s 1964 win over Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.).

In a decision that confounded LBJ, Israel began its war with Egypt 10 days early. The USS Liberty was rushed from its position off the horn of Africa to the Mediterranean Sea. The Liberty had been chosen as the victim of Operation Cyanide.

In Remember the Liberty! Nelson recalls the tense confusion and abandonment Admiral Lawrence Geis experienced as the Liberty was being attacked. Geis later relayed the tale to Chief Intelligence Officer David Lewis, who agreed not to reveal the information until Geis had died, which he did in 1987.

Geis explained to Lewis that Johnson had ordered two sorties of fighter jets recalled—one that had been en route to the Liberty ten minutes after the attack. Johnson had also recalled two A-4s, launched from the USS America within minutes, armed with nuclear weapons and headed for Cairo, Egypt.

McNamara called Geis and instructed him to recall the aircraft. “We’re not going to war over a few dead soldiers,” McNamara told Geis. McNamara, expecting the Liberty to sink within the hour, told Geis that he could order another sortie of fighter jets in 90 minutes. When the hour-and-a-half had passed, Geis prepared to order assistance. McNamara again instructed him to recall the order.

Geis demanded to speak to the president, who was standing next to McNamara. Johnson confirmed to Geis that he should “recall the wings.” He told Geis that he didn’t care if the Liberty sunk to the bottom of the Mediterranean. He was not going to embarrass his ally.

Upon assuming the presidency after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Johnson had told Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Golda Meir in 1963, “You’ve lost a great friend, but you’ve found a better one.” He promised Ms. Meir that there would be no repeat of the Eisenhower incident of 1956. Ike had rebutted Johnson, who had attempted to persuade the president to back off on sanctioning Israel. The threat of sanctions was levied by Eisenhower after Israel had refused to release lands in the Sinai Peninsula.

In Remember the Liberty! Nelson further details the political maneuverings that make Johnson, McNamara, and LBJ’s administration culpable in the 1967 attack on American sailors off the coast of Egypt and Israel. A part of the proceeds from Nelson’s work are donated to the Liberty Veterans Association.

*Remember the Liberty! Almost Sunk by Treason on the High Seas (softcover, 480 pages) by Phillip Nelson is available from the American Free Press Bookstore for $20 plus $4 shipping and handling inside the U.S. If you prefer, send cash, check or money order to AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774. Or call 1-888-699-NEWS Mon. thru Thu. 9-5 ET  to charge.

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




‘Freeing Up Money’ Is Solution to Money Reform, Says AMI Presenter

The American Monetary Institute has been teaching people about money for many years, and just completed it’s 13th annual conference. Featured below is a presentation by Mark S. Pash who says “The solution is freeing up money.” Pash  stresses Americans on both “sides” of the ideological spectrum—right-leaning and left-leaning—must compromise a little to implement what he sees as the answer to our national money woes.    

By Mark Anderson

CHICAGO, Ill.—At the American Monetary Institute’s (AMI) 13th annual Chicago conference, author Mark S. Pash shared some particularly intriguing insights from his latest book, Creating a 21st Century Win-Win Economy, which seeks to bridge the left-right divide and offer key monetary-reform proposals that are acceptable to a broad cross-section of the populace—and to a fractured Congress. Pash stressed that “marketing” monetary reform is key to its success in the conclusion of his hour-long talk at University Center downtown.

Pash’s presentation was part of a Sept. 14-17 lecture series that served as a tribute to late AMI founder Stephen Zarlenga, the respected author of The Lost Science of Money, who passed away recently at his home near Chicago. Zarlenga’s lengthy book defines money as not needing a gold standard and says that, as a function of the law, money should not be privately created at interest.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Pash’s core message was that a specific species of monetary reform can solve the riddle of providing incomes in an age of increasing robotics and automation. He emphasized the robotic age is with us in force, even to the extent of replacing Mexican farmers. Furthermore, a sophisticated robot popularly known as “Baxter” works “for $4 an hour without vacations,” Pash said, even while robotized short-order cooks are coming on board, along with self-driving vehicles and several other automated systems that displace human labor.

And while an Adidas sports-wear plant in China employs around 1,000 people, a similar plant in Germany that’s automated has only about 160 human employees. A clear upside is that robots will eventually replace “sweatshop” workers who are stuck in wage-slave jobs and suffer abuse under poor, often dangerous working conditions and long hours.

Liberty Stickers

So, what to do?

“The solution is freeing up money,” Pash explained, utilizing a modified basic-income model that would differ from the Universal Basic Income proposals that have been floated overseas and are under consideration in Canada. Since money is cheap to make and distribute, a variety of channels would be utilized under Pash’s vision to get money for consumer purchasing power, business startups, and other purposes into the hands of the populace to supplement whatever work-related income they have.

Here, Pash’s outline bears some resemblance to “social credit,” a set of policy proposals born 100 years ago, that recognize the inherent shortfall of purchasing power compared to the accumulation of prices and debts in each production cycle. As Pash told conference attendees—roughly in line with social-credit solutions—the key goal is to “decouple jobs from money” to some extent, and to issue new interest-free money, not money borrowed at interest, to society. This would enable the population to buy products stemming from automation while progress would no longer equal more debt. Increased leisure time for personal development would be another dividend.

“We’d reduce the work week because the robots are going to do the work”—at least the most menial work—Pash stated, while stressing that unless such monetary adjustments are made to make room for cost-saving and labor-relieving automation yet still maintain human incomes—while reducing and redirecting the power of the banks and reorienting the workforce—displaced human populations may resort to massive uprisings that would likely be quelled by force.

Pash explained that banks would be denied their current power of usurious money creation and would be limited to providing essential services, like securing deposits from the public that to some extent would be used to make loans, thus eliminating the current practice of “fractional reserve banking” by which banks make virtually fictitious “loans” far in excess of the cash reserves physically in their vaults.

Consequently, banks would become part of a proposed money-distribution network involving direct government spending (such as on improved and cheaper infrastructure, education, and health care), loaning money into the economy at very low rates (or perhaps only at a cost of one-time fees), and investing money into the economy, among other approaches.

This diversity of distribution, he said, “controls inflation” and wouldn’t solely involve government spending. “Otherwise, Congress won’t pass it,” he explained.

Pash stressed the importance of those who are politically to the “left” scooting a little to the right and vice versa in order to unify behind beneficial solutions for all.

Notably, the introduction to Pash’s book envisions a future scenario where, “The Trump administration pushed through complete monetary reform eliminating the creation of debt money by the banks and substantially increasing the distribution systems of newly created money.”

The banks, which Pash called “the most powerful non-military institutions in the world,” would come to see that they, too, could benefit under this new monetary paradigm, since in Pash’s future scenario the banking industry would “boom with all the new deposits and loans they provided the public without the worry of periodic collapses.” He also predicts a 24-hour work week for the average worker with four to six weeks of annual vacation and personal time.

The imperative here, Pash summarized, is to correct “the macroeconomic philosophy” of the richest 1%, “so that they will use their influence correctly, to create a win-win economy.”

Pash, a former congressional candidate, grew up working in family operations in the manufacturing and retail sectors. He is a personal financial advisor with two business degrees, a UCLA bachelor’s and a USC master’s. See more at cpe.us.com.

AMI has long backed the NEED Act, HR 2990, first introduced by former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 but never passed into law. While calling for nationalizing the Federal Reserve and spending considerable new money on infrastructure, the bill contains some of the elements of Pash’s proposals—which are more multi-faceted than The NEED Act and are among the latest ideas that AMI has heard.

Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as the roving editor for AFP. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.




Roy Moore’s Senate Bid Gets Boost After Top Republican Busted in Corruption Probe

Roy Moore, former Alabama chief justice, came to national prominence when he refused to obey a federal court order to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building. Later, he became embroiled in the “gay marriage” issue when he directed Alabama’s probate judges to continue enforcing the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Now, Moore is now vying for the U.S. Senate seat vacated when Jeff Sessions was appointed U.S. Attorney General. 

By AFP Staff

Judge Roy Moore’s candidacy for Alabama’s Republican U.S. Senate seat, to be decided in a run-off election Sept. 26, got a shot in the arm last week when news outlet “Alabama Today” revealed Luther Strange, Moore’s run-off opponent, has been involved in a company that “sells” visas to get into the United States.

The news outlet revealed that Strange owns nearly 17% of Sunbelt EB-5 Regional Center, which offers a program whereby wealthy foreign nationals can “purchase” visas from real estate developers for $500,000. Under the program, those foreign nationals, their spouses, and their unmarried children under age 21 are able to apply for green cards.

More than 80% of the 2016 EB-5 visas were given to mainland Chinese investors.

Strange, a former Washington lobbyist, also asked the state legislature to weaken a law that applied to illegal immigration and sanctuary cities when he was the state’s attorney general in 2011. Federal courts had already eliminated some provisions of the law.

Gideon Elite book cover

Last month, Moore won a three-way primary with 39% of the vote. Strange was second with 33%. Only 20% of Republicans voted for Rep. Mo Brooks. Brooks has endorsed Moore, but the establishment is behind Strange.

As AFP goes to press, President Donald Trump said he will be campaigning with Strange.

The winner of this week’s primary will face a Democrat on Dec. 12 to fill the seat previously held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions who was appointed U.S. attorney general by President Trump.

Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s super PAC, multiple energy and insurance PACs, Washington lobbyists, and Alabama businesses have either endorsed or provided funding to Strange’s $3.2 million war chest. Moore has only raised some $459,000. Democrat Doug Jones has $288,000 in the bank.

Consejo de Latinos Unidos (CDLU) called on the feds to investigate Strange’s involvement in alleged corruption and the trampling of the civil rights of a father of four young children who was allegedly targeted, falsely arrested, and defamed by one of Strange’s most ardent financial and political supporters.

Then-Attorney General Strange entered a friend of the court brief in a matter against banking collections business lawyer Burt Newsome in August 2016—two years after a judge had cleared Newsome in a criminal case.

Newsome filed a civil suit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Ala., last month alleging a conspiracy involving malicious prosecution, abuse of process, defamation, several instances of intentional interference with a business or contracted relationship, and more. Part of the evidence is a disappearing voter registration record. Unfortunately, Judge Carole Smitherman sealed the case, allowing for secret proceedings.

Strange’s filing helped the law firm of Balch & Bingham, one of the alleged co-conspirators, gain precedence to reopen the criminal case in Alabama, CDLU suggests. “Strange’s top political advisor and former campaign manager, Jessica Garrison, was ‘of counsel’ at Balch until this past spring, a known revolving-door for political operatives,” said K.B. Forbes, executive director of CDLU.

Smitherman and Strange received more than $15,000 from Balch’s PAC in previous campaigns.




Will Congress and Trump Declare War on WikiLeaks?

If the Senate Intelligence Committee, in service of the Deep State, has its way, providing truthful information to Americans about their government—or even merely criticizing the welfare-warfare state—will soon be illegal and grounds for shutting down whistle-blowing organizations and websites or potentially even sending out military forces to arrest truth-tellers. WikiLeaks would be just the first of many groups targeted for such treatment, warns Dr. Paul.

By Ron Paul

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently passed its Intelligence Authorization Act for 2018 that contains a chilling attack on the First Amendment. Section 623 of the act expresses the “sense of Congress” that WikiLeaks resembles a “non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such.” This language is designed to delegitimize WikiLeaks, encourage the federal government to spy on individuals working with WikiLeaks, and block access to WikiLeaks’s website. This provision could even justify sending U.S. forces abroad to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange or other WikiLeaks personnel.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate, attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

WikiLeaks critics claim that the organization’s leaks harm U.S. national security. However, these critics are unable to provide a single specific example of WikiLeaks’ actions harming the American people. WikiLeaks does harm the reputations of government agencies and politicians, however. For example, earlier this year WikiLeaks released information on the CIA’s hacking program. The leaks did not reveal any details on operations against foreign targets, but they did let the American people know how easy it is for the government to hack into their electronic devices.

For the last year, most of the news surrounding WikiLeaks has centered on its leak of emails showing how prominent Democrats worked to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. In order to deflect attention from these revelations, Democrats, aided by their allies in the media and even some Republicans, promulgated a conspiracy theory blaming the leaks on Russian hackers working to defeat Hillary Clinton. Even though there is no evidence the Russians were behind the leaks, many in both parties are still peddling the “Putin did it” narrative. This aids an effort by the Deep State and its allies in Congress and the media to delegitimize last year’s election, advance a new Cold War with Russia, and criminalize WikiLeaks.

If the government is successful in shutting down WikiLeaks by labeling it a “hostile intelligence service,” it will use this tactic to silence other organizations and websites as well. The goal will be to create a climate of fear to ensure no one dares publish the revelations of a future Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning.

Some have suggested that criticizing police brutality, the surveillance state, the Federal Reserve, or even federal spending aids “hostile foreign powers” by weakening the people’s “trust in government.” This line of reasoning could be used to silence, in the name of “national security,” websites critical of the welfare-warfare state.

By labeling WikiLeaks a “hostile intelligence service” and thus legitimizing government action against the organization, the Senate Intelligence Authorization Act threatens the ability of whistleblowers to inform the public about government misdeeds. It also sets a precedent that could be used to limit other types of free speech.

President Trump should make it clear he will veto any bill giving government new powers to silence organizations like WikiLeaks. If President Trump supports the war on WikiLeaks, after candidate Trump proclaimed his love for WikiLeaks, it will be further proof that he has outsourced his presidency to the Deep State.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, along with notable whistleblowers, foreign policy experts, and leading champions of peace and liberty, will be addressing this important issue at my Institute for Peace and Prosperity’s conference on Saturday, September 9 at the Dulles Airport Marriott Hotel in Dulles, Virginia outside of Washington, D.C. You can get more information about the conference and purchase tickets at the Ron Paul Institute.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, online at www.ronpaulinstitute.org.




Can the GOP’s Shotgun Marriage Be Saved?

Given all the backbiting and infighting amongst Republicans, including even between some of Trump’s own Cabinet members and the president, can the GOP be salvaged? For that matter, can America be saved?

By Patrick Buchanan

Wednesday morning, Nov. 9, 2016, Republicans awoke to learn they had won the lottery. Donald Trump had won the presidency by carrying Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. All three states had gone Democratic in the last six presidential elections.

The GOP had won both houses of Congress. Party control of governorships and state legislatures rivaled the halcyon years of the 1920s.

But not everyone was jubilant. Neocons and Never-Trumpers were appalled, and as morose as they had been since the primaries produced a populist slaughter of what GOP elites had boasted was the finest class of presidential candidates in memory.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate, attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

And there was this sobering fact: Hillary Clinton had won the popular vote. Her margin would rise to near three million, making this the sixth in seven presidential elections that the GOP lost the popular vote. Trump had cracked the Democrats’s “blue wall,” but a shift of 70,000 votes would have meant a third straight GOP defeat.

Seven months into the Trump presidency, the promise of a new Republican era has receded. It is not because Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have proven to be such formidable adversaries, but because the GOP coalition has gone to battle stations—against itself.

Trump has taken to disparaging Senate Leader Mitch McConnell for failing to pass healthcare reform, though the decisive vote to kill the bill came from John McCain, who, for his own motives and to media cheers, torpedoed McConnell’s effort and humiliated his party.

Gideon Elite book cover

And as Allan Ryskind writes in The Washington Times, McConnell is responsible for Neil Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court. Had Mitch not kept his troops in line to block a Senate vote on President Obama’s election-year nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, there would have been no vacancy for Trump to fill with Gorsuch.

McConnell is also indispensable to the Trump-GOP effort to repopulate federal appellate courts with disciples of Antonin Scalia.

What purpose is served by the coach trashing his quarterback—in mid-season?

Undeniably, Congress, which the voters empowered to repeal Obamacare, reduce tax rates and rebuild America’s infrastructure, has thus far failed. And if Congress fails to produce on tax reform, the GOP will have some serious explaining to do in 2018.

As for Trump, while public approval of his performance is at record lows for a president in his first year, he has fulfilled some major commitments and has had some major achievements.

He put Gorsuch on the court. He pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Accord. He persuaded NATO allies to put up more for defense. He approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.

Border security is markedly better. The economic news has been excellent: Record run-ups in the stock market, near full employment, growth approaching the 3% he promised. The coal industry has been liberated, and the Trump folks are renegotiating NAFTA.

Yet the divisions over policy and the persona of the president are widening. Trump is disliked and disrespected by many in his own party on Capitol Hill, and much of the Republican media proudly despise him.

And that form of bribery so familiar to D.C.—trashing one’s president at the coaxing of the press, in return for plaudits to one’s “courage” and “independence”—is openly practiced.

More critically, there are disputes over policy that again seem irreconcilable.

Free-trade Republicans remain irredeemably hostile to economic nationalism, though countries like China continue to eat our lunch. In July, the U.S. trade deficit in goods was $65 billion, an annual rate of more than $780 billion.

IRS Loses Cases

Interventionists continue to push for confrontation with Russia in the Baltic States and Ukraine, for more U.S. troops in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, for scrapping the nuclear deal with Iran.

On social issues, the GOP seems split, with many willing to soft-peddle opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion and wait on a Supreme Court that ignited the culture wars to reverse course with new Trump appointees.

Even Cabinet members and Trump aides have let the media know they sharply dissent from Trump’s stand in the Charlottesville brawl. And the coming clash over statues of Confederate soldiers and statesmen is likely to split Northern and Southern Republicans.

The white working class that provided Trump his margins in the Middle West wonders why affirmative action, reverse discrimination at their expense, has not been abolished.

As for Speaker Paul Ryan and others committed to entitlement reform—paring back Social Security and Medicare benefits while raising the contributions of the well-to-do to ensure the long-term solvency of the programs—they have not been heard from lately.

What seems apparent is that the historic opportunity the party had in January, to forge a coalition of conservatives and populists who might find common ground on immigration, trade, border security, spending, culture, and foreign policy, is slipping away.

And the battle for the soul and future of the GOP, thought to have been suspended until 2020, is on once again.

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Inside the Poison Papers

“Poison Papers” is the sadly appropriate name for an online compilation of documents that reveal decades of government cover-ups on the use of toxic chemicals, collusion between the chemical industry and regulatory agencies, deceit, incompetence, fraud, and ultimately an utter lack of concern for life itself. 

By James Spounias

Carol Van Strum desired a simple life when she and her family moved to Oregon’s idyllic Siuslaw National Forest in 1974. Little did she know that she would become a curator of information indicting powerful chemical companies and government agencies, which resulted in the creation of an online library known as the “Poison Papers,” or that she would suffer personal tragedy as well.

Published by the Center for Media and Democracy and the Bioscience Resource Project, the Poison Papers lay out “a 40-year history of deceit and collusion involving the chemical industry and the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be protecting human health and the environment,” according to Peter von Stackelberg, a journalist who helped establish the online collection, as reported by Sharon Lerner on the news website “TheIntercept.com.”

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate, attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

The saga began in the 1970s when Ms. Van Strum asked U.S. Forest Service employees to stop spraying herbicides in the area of her home. In one incident, her children had been directly doused as they fished in a nearby river.

Ms. Lerner reported: “Immediately after they were sprayed, Van Strum’s children developed nosebleeds, bloody diarrhea, and headaches, and many of their neighbors fell sick, too. Several women who lived in the area had miscarriages shortly after incidents of spraying. Locals described finding animals that had died or had bizarre deformities—ducks with backward-facing feet, birds with misshapen beaks, and blinded elk; cats and dogs that had been exposed began bleeding from their eyes and ears. At a community meeting, residents decided to write to the Forest Service detailing the effects of the spraying they had witnessed.”

Gideon Elite book cover

Ms. Van Strum thought, as any reasonable American would, once the agency knew how detrimental the spraying was “they wouldn’t do it anymore.”

She discovered that the herbicide used by the Forest Service contained an active ingredient used in Agent Orange, which even the U.S. military stopped using in Vietnam after it became known it caused serious harm to humans and the environment. Ms. Lerner reported that “between 1972 and 1977, the Forest Service sprayed 20,000 pounds of 2,4,5-T (an active ingredient in Agent Orange) in the 1,600-square-mile area that included Van Strum’s house and the nearby town of Alsea.”

The Forest Service refused Ms. Van Strum’s request, so she, along with her neighbors, took them to court, which resulted in a victory of sorts. A temporary ban was issued on the use of 2,4,5-T in 1977, and it was ultimately stopped in 1983, according to Ms. Lerner.

“We didn’t think of ourselves as environmentalists; that wasn’t even a word back then. We just didn’t want to be poisoned,” Ms. Van Strum said.

Tragically, Ms. Van Strum’s four children died in a 1997 home fire, which spread suspiciously quickly and was not investigated. Ms. Lerner reported: “Firefighters who came to the scene said the fact that the whole house had burned so quickly pointed to the possibility of arson. But an investigation of the causes of the fire was never completed.”

Today, Ms. Van Strum lives in an outbuilding next to the cleared area where her home once stood and has accepted the fact she will “never really know” whether foul play was involved.

Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., cofounder and director of the Bioscience Resource Project and director of the Poison Papers, explains how things got to the point where bureaucratic agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), don’t care about the public they are charged with protecting.

When agency scientists discover wrongdoing, such as fraud by major chemical companies, they “don’t do anything about it because they have to pass it up the line” to their senior administrator (and ultimately) to the president, who will have to take a stand against a toxic chemical and its producer, Dr. Latham told Todd Zwillich on WNCY radio on July 31.

Latham said bad news doesn’t travel up the agency, leaving a “closet full of skeletons,” which aptly describes the Poison Papers.

For instance, a company called Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) was responsible for up to 40% of all chemical safety tests.

Monsanto and other giants used this testing company, which got some media attention in light of a negative report issued by the Food and Drug Administration. Top bureaucrats had to “do something.”

Rebekah Wilce reported on “independentsciencenews.com” that testing animals would decompose so quickly that “their bodies oozed through wire cage bottoms and lay in purple puddles on the dropping trays” and that IBT invented an acronym “TBD,” later discovered to mean “too badly decomposed.”

Poison Papers documents reveal a secret meeting with the EPA, Canada’s Health Protection Branch, and top chemical companies on Oct. 3, 1978 at the Howard Johnson Motor Inn in Arlington, Va.

Government bureaucrats “kicked the can down the road,” giving IBT a chance to resubmit studies, according to Latham. He noted that, “Meanwhile, you’re not telling the public that the chemicals that they’re using in their households and yards and that are in their food have unsound tests behind them.. . . In some cases, 100% of the tests were unsound.”

Those who wonder what is causing so much illness, such as cancer, dementia, and other problems, may have an answer, and it lies in chemical exposure, said Latham.

The evidence continues to mount daily against big business and government.

If the words of those who poison and the bureaucrats who cover up and do nothing won’t convince us we need to take action, what will?

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine. To receive a free issue of Carotec Health Report—a monthly newsletter loaded with well-researched and reliable alternative health information—please write Carotec, P.O. Box 9919, Naples, FL 34101 or call 1-800-522-4279. Also included will be a list of the high-quality health supplements Carotec recommends.




NRA Gunning for ‘Fake News’ Flagship

The most recent video ad from the National Rifle Association targets The New York Times—or as NRA national spokesperson Dana Loesch calls it, the “old gray hag”—with a hard-hitting denouncement, telling the paper it is not “in any way truth- or fact-based journalism.”

By Dave Gahary

In a clear nod to the message this newspaper has been delivering since its inception, the country’s oldest “continuously operating civil rights organization,” the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), has the country’s “newspaper of record,” The New York Times, in its sights.

In a powerful, new 53-second video ad, the NRA unleashes a blistering, withering assault on the Times and uses spokesperson Dana Loesch to deliver its message.

Ms. Loesch (pronounced “lash”), who was hired in June of last year to be the NRA’s national spokesperson, is an award-winning journalist and television and talk-radio conservative political commentator, appearing on Fox News, CNN, CBS, ABC, and HBO among other outlets. She’s intelligent, attractive, and easy to listen to, with a delivery reminiscent of the late populist patriot Jim Traficant.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate, attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

In the video ad, Ms. Loesch tells the Times:

We the people, have had it. We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We’ve had it with your constant protection of your Democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we’ve had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth- or fact-based journalism. Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow. We’re going to “fisk” [refute] The New York Times and find out just what “deep rich” means to this old gray hag, this untrustworthy, dishonest rag that has subsisted on the welfare of mediocrity for one, two, three, more decades. We’re gonna laser-focus on your so-called honest pursuit of truth. In short, we’re coming for you.

The video can be viewed online by searching for the title, “Dana Loesch: We’re coming for you New York Times.” It’s certainly worth the watch.

Needless to say, “the ad sparked a serious backlash, with critics claiming it promotes violence,” as “Fox News Insider” reported, and it led one CNN analyst to claim he “reported” the NRA for “hate speech.”

IRS Loses Cases

An earlier NRA video ad from April of this year also raised the ire of the left. This 59-second video is quite powerful as well, and targets the Marxist factions intent on the destruction of this once-great nation.

They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the “resistance,” all to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia, to smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding, until the only option left, is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness. And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with a clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m freedom’s safest place.

The soft terrorist group Black Lives Matter calls the ad “an open call to violence to protect white supremacy,” and a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama called it “revolting and frightening.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) went so far as to say: “I think the NRA is telling people to shoot us. Now might be the right time to cancel your membership.”

This video can also be viewed on the Internet by searching for the title, “Freedom’s Safest Place: Violence of Lies.” It, too, is certainly worth the watch.

No matter the so-called controversy created by the video ads, this is a good thing, and we say, “Hey, NRA, welcome to the real resistance. It took you long enough.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information.




Charlottesville: Gladio Meets Cointelpro?

Thinking people who have watched any video of the violent clashes in the streets of Charlottesville, Va. surrounding the legally permitted Unite the Right rally and Antifa’s “counter-protest” are surely scratching their heads along with us, wondering why law enforcement not only failed to keep the two opposing groups separate, but apparently pushed them together–all while standing back and watching the assaults happen without taking action to prevent or stop the mayhem. Kevin Barrett offers one explanation, based in well-documented history, to explain why the event may have unfolded as it did.

By Kevin Barrett

America’s liberal mainstream media is blaming violence in Charlottesville on the so-called alt-right. According to the dominant narrative, crazed neo-Nazi hooligans descended on a quiet college town and started beating people up and running people over. But when a violent, galvanizing, hyper-mediated event occurs, and the mainstream immediately tells us who to blame, I immediately think of 9/11 and all the other false-flag outrages that have done so much damage to our country.

As I wrote in the immediate aftermath of the Charlottesville clashes:

The recent ultraviolence in Charlottesville bears some of the hallmarks of a contrived event: It was shocking, spectacular, hyped by mainstream media, and seemingly designed to cast blame on a demonized ‘other’ (in this case, the alt-right white nationalist movement). Additionally, it could be seen as furthering a ‘strategy of tension’ pitting left against right, multiculturalism against racial nationalism, Bernie Sanders extremists against Donald Trump extremists, and so on.

Deep-state operations designed to polarize societies pursue a “strategy of tension.” They manipulate public opinion by making their opponents, whether on the left or the right, look like violent, dangerous extremists.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

Operation Gladio, a Pentagon program run through NATO, pursued this “strategy of tension” in Cold War-era Europe. Infiltrating and manipulating both right-wing and left-wing groups, deep-state operators incited terrorism and violence, thereby discrediting opposition to NATO-bankster rule and frightening voters into supporting the establishment.

Swiss professor Daniele Ganser and other researchers have shown that virtually all of the “left-wing terrorism” in Europe during the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s was actually perpetrated by Operation Gladio. Likewise, most “right-wing violence” was also a Gladio product.

Could Cointelpro, a domestic U.S. equivalent of Operation Gladio, be infiltrating both white nationalist groups and their “Antifa” opposition? Undoubtedly. Could deep-state operators be fomenting violence in an effort to discredit populism? Quite possibly.

The 2016 presidential elections delivered a slap to the face of America’s deep-state elite. Left-wing populist Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and could only be kept out of the White House through election fraud. Right-wing populist Donald Trump won an overwhelming, fraud-proof victory in the Republican primaries, then defied polls and pundits by winning the general election.

Populism is surging. Elites are panicking. The mainstream media’s stranglehold over public opinion is eroding.

America’s self-appointed platonic guardians are scrambling to adjust to the new reality. They appear to be resorting to ever-more-extreme measures in a desperate effort to shore up their dominance.

Their primary target is free speech on the Internet.  The Trump-Sanders phenomenon was the result of 15 years of alternative media chipping away at consensus reality in general and the official story of 9/11 in particular. A deep sentiment of mistrust now pervades the populace.

IRS Loses Cases

The Platonic Guardians and the deep state they rule are desperately seeking ways to muzzle Internet-based alternative media. During the past several months, their pet CIA search engine, Google, has been systematically tweaked in an effort to hide alternative news websites from the general public. This has resulted in a 60% decline in readership for such truth-telling websites as GlobalResearch.ca. The deep state is also trying to cut truth-tellers’ financial lifelines by such means as removing AFP’s credit card processing capabilities, nuking my GoFundMe platform, orchestrating the suspension of truth-seeking academicians like Professor Anthony Hall and Joy Karega from universities, banning history books from Amazon, removing alternative media from YouTube advertising programs, and otherwise trying to starve truth-seekers into submission.

But these attacks on alternative media can only be effective to the extent that public opinion acquiesces. To overcome America’s traditional affinity for free speech, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the deep state needs to convince the public that the Internet is populated by dangerous, violent extremists who must be muzzled in the name of public safety and “homeland security.”

And that is where events like Charlottesville come in. Observers have noted that heavily militarized police and National Guard units initially showed up in force­­—then conveniently disappeared just before the violence was incited.

And why were demonstrators allowed to carry weapons? Normally police prevent marchers from carrying objects that could be used as fighting implements. Yet Charlottesville demonstrators carried pepper spray, clubs, weaponizable torches, and so on.

Finally, why does big media obsessively focus on certain self-appointed “leaders” who do everything they can to make the alt-right look bad?

Could the people who benefit the most from “populist” violence—the anti-populist elite—be up to their usual tricks?

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




Trump Wants Immigration Cut

The recently introduced RAISE Act–Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy–would utilize a merit-based point system to increase the English language fluency and technical skills level of foreign citizens accepted into the U.S. while at the same time decreasing the total number approved for entry. While countries around the world have just such a commonsense system in place, left-leaning groups in America are screaming “racism” and “discrimination” over the idea the U.S. would implement a similar strategy. 

By John Friend

In yet another effort to fulfill his campaign promises, President Donald Trump recently announced a major new immigration proposal designed to significantly reduce the number of legal immigrants entering the U.S. each year.

The president has been and remains a vocal critic of illegal immigration and has taken serious and commendable measures to crack down on it. However, legal immigration is arguably an even more urgent problem that needs to be addressed, as over 1 million legal immigrants enter the U.S. each year, and this proposal aims to tackle this issue head-on.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

The bill is known as the RAISE Act, which stands for Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act. It seeks to transform the current immigration paradigm to incentivize highly skilled immigrants by creating a merit-based system for prospective migrants, a stark departure from the previous immigration model that allowed family members and relatives of immigrants already settled in America to gain residency regardless of their skills, education, and economic prospects upon entering the U.S.

The Trump administration has been working closely with two key GOP lawmakers—Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.)—to craft the legislation and announced their proposal last week during a White House ceremony.

Trump explained to reporters that the proposed legislation “would represent the most significant reform to our immigration system in a half a century.”

During the presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump regularly criticized America’s broken immigration system, which he correctly argued has harmed America’s economy and its workers, jeopardized American national security, and facilitated the resettlement of millions of largely unskilled, uneducated immigrants who have little to offer the U.S. economy.

“As a candidate, I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers and taxpayers, and that’s why we are here today,” Trump told reporters during the White House ceremony announcing the legislation.

The bill’s proponents argue that it will “spur economic growth and help raise working Americans’ wages” by “ending chain migration, giving priority to the most highly skilled immigrants from around the world, and reducing overall immigration by half,” according to a fact sheet released by Cotton and Perdue.

“Only 1 out of every 15 U.S. immigrants come here because of their skills, and we do not prioritize the ultra high-skilled immigrants who spur innovation, create jobs, and make America more competitive,” the fact sheet contends. “At the same time, the United States accepts 1 million immigrants annually—the equivalent of adding the entire state of Montana each year—and most are low- or unskilled. A generation-long influx of low-skilled immigrant labor has put downward pressure on the wages of working Americans, with recent immigrants’ wages hardest hit.”

The bill seeks to upend America’s disastrous immigration policy by tackling these issues head-on.

The RAISE Act would establish a skills-based points system that prioritizes visa applicants based on a number of important factors, including their education, English-speaking ability, job offers, and overall economic prospects. It would also outright eliminate granting visa preference for the extended family members and relatives of immigrants already settled in the United States, and would eliminate the State Department’s so-called “Diversity Visa Lottery,” which the bill’s authors argue is “plagued with fraud” and “advances no economic or humanitarian interest.” Finally, the bill would limit the total number of refugees seeking permanent residency each year to 50,000.

“Immigrants coming here on skills-based visas will be better educated, more skilled, more fluent in English, have more working-age years ahead of them, and have a stronger entrepreneurial spirit,” proponents of the bill contend. “They will have a greater shot at becoming successful Americans, which will work to the benefit of all Americans in the form of an expanded and more competitive economy.”

The legislation has been praised by a number of conservative groups and leaders as well as a variety of immigration think tanks that favor more restrictions on immigration, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, while Democrats, the radical left, and a variety of ethnic lobbying organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have hysterically condemned the proposed legislation.

“This proposed legislation is cruel, anti-family, and un-American,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, stated in response to the RAISE Act. “These are the types of policy markers that exacerbate immigrant bashing and nativist attitudes in this country. Diversity is our country’s strength and immigration has made America great.” Greenblatt and other opponents of the bill have pledged to “work hard against this cruel legislation.”

A number of prominent Republicans have also voiced their suspicion and outright hostility toward the RAISE Act, complicating matters for the president. Passing the legislation will no doubt prove to be a challenge, as has virtually everything else Trump has attempted to accomplish.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




Tech Giants Have the Right to Censor Internet, Says Free Speech Lawyer

Recent court rulings seem to favor Amazon and Google in the ongoing battle over Internet censorship. AFP asked a professor who specializes in Internet law to explain how such tech giants are legally allowed to censor the Internet. 

By Dave Gahary

As readers and supporters of American Free Press and its sister publication The Barnes Review are well aware, books and videos considered to be verboten by the reigning tech giants have been removed for sale or distribution from these companies’ bookstores and websites.

“In early March, to the shock and dismay of free speech advocates around the world, Internet retail giant Amazon caved to pressure from special interest groups and mainstream news outlets and quietly pulled at least 100 political and historical books from its website,” wrote Paul Angel recently in AFP.

SINGLE MALE over 50, Polish-Italian, non-smoker, in good shape, articulate,
attentive seeking a single female, slender, intelligent, down-to-earth, who’s
looking for love and willing to relocate. Serious calls 727-492-8164.

Prior to this mass book banning, YouTube, the video-sharing website created by three former PayPal employees in 2005 and bought by Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion, has come down hard on videos on AFP’s website, by sending a shot across our bow in the following email:

As you may know, our Community Guidelines describe which content we allow—and don’t allow—on YouTube. Your video ‘Jewish Groups Shut Down Canadian Newspaper’ was flagged for review. Upon review, we’ve determined that it violates our guidelines. We’ve removed it from YouTube and assigned a Community Guidelines strike, or temporary penalty, to your account.

We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express their points of view, even if unpopular. However, YouTube doesn’t allow hate speech. Sometimes there’s a fine line between what is and isn’t considered hate speech. If you’re not sure whether or not your content crosses the line, we ask that you don’t post it.

This is the first strike applied to your account. We understand that users seldom intend to violate our policies. That’s why strikes don’t last forever—this strike will expire in three months. However, it’s important to remember that additional strikes could prevent you from posting content to YouTube or even lead to your account being terminated.

The video cited, “Jewish Groups Shut Down Canadian Newspaper,” was simply an audio interview this reporter conducted with Dr. James Sears, editor-in-chief of Your Ward News, a quarterly local newspaper distributed in Toronto, discussing the fact that Jewish groups had complained to Canadian politicians about Sears’s newspaper. In response, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada Judy Foote ordered Canada Post to stop the distribution of the paper, which was called “anti-Semitic” and “racist” by its critics.

Naturally, Foote would not make such a move unless someone complained, and that someone, as is clearly documented, was Jewish groups. So there was nothing “hateful” about the interview. Sears was just explaining what happened.

IRS Loses Cases

YouTube attacked some other videos as well, claiming they were not “advertiser friendly.” This is quite odd, as the videos merely discussed a very hot topic: the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. These videos, which were simply audio interviews adapted to video format, can garner income, depending upon how many views or listens they accumulate. YouTube would have none of that with this video:

Hi American Free Press,

Thanks for submitting your video(s) for monetization. We didn’t approve your video(s) for monetization because the content in your video(s) or video details may not be advertiser-friendly. If you believe that the content in your video is advertiser- friendly, you can request an additional review below:

“Wolfgang Halbig Gains Some Ground”

Please note that review times may vary, and YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision whether to monetize a video. All videos are subject to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, and may be removed from the site if they don’t meet those standards.

Thanks,
The YouTube Team

AFP received a nearly identical warning when it came to the interview we conducted with Dr. James Tracy titled “Firing of Professor for Sandy Hook Beliefs Cowardly.”

NO RECOURSE

Do booksellers and content creators have any recourse if Amazon and YouTube remove content they deem to be “offensive”?

The short answer is “no,” as this newspaper discovered via an email exchange with one of the nation’s top Internet law professors.

Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law in California, where he teaches and publishes in the areas of Internet law, intellectual property, and advertising and marketing law.

This reporter became acquainted with Goldman via an article he wrote for Forbes entitled “Can YouTube ‘Remove and Relocate’ User Videos Capriciously?” The article makes reference to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is central to understanding why these tech giants can do as they wish.

The act was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which amended or repealed sections of the Communications Act of 1934 and was the first major overhaul of U.S. telecommunications policy in nearly 62 years. It allows Internet service providers (ISPs) and other service providers to restrict customers’ actions without worrying about being found legally liable. Specifically, the act states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Section 230 had its beginnings in protecting children, and was passed in part in reaction to 1995’s Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., “which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers.” Section 230 was passed to allow service providers to delete and monitor content without becoming publishers.

Gideon Elite book cover

The court stated in another lawsuit, Zeran v. America Online, Inc., (where the plaintiff, Kenneth M. Zeran’s phone number was posted on an Internet bulletin board that glorified the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, which Zeran had no connection to or involvement with) that:

Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision. Under that court’s holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher.

Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted §230’s broad immunity ‘to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material,’ and ‘the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering.’ The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems.

Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect.

AFP asked Goldman about the significance of Section 230. “Section 230(c)(2) is directly relevant by providing websites with a safe harbor for removing content they consider objectionable,” he explained. “The website’s terms of service are also highly relevant, such as where the sites say they can terminate accounts or delete content at their discretion.”

Since Section 230 allows these companies to censor any material they wish, AFP asked if it is foolish for someone “to piggyback on the audience aggregated by third party intermediary publishers,” like YouTube, since “the cloud service provider’s policies and practices can easily moot those investments with little recourse, judicial or otherwise.”

“I don’t think it’s foolish at all,” Goldman said. “Usually, content producers must rely on third party intermediaries for ‘distribution,’ i.e., to reach a broader audience. However, if the distributor has the contractual and legal right to pull the rug out from under the content producer at any time, then the content producer either needs to accept that contingency or bargain for a better deal.”

AFP asked what would be an example of “the contractual and legal right to pull the rug out from under the content producer at any time.”

“A clause like, ‘We can terminate your account or delete your content at any time in our sole discretion,’ ” he explained.

It’s worth emphasizing that Goldman inexplicably disagrees with the argument that Amazon and Google, which operate as virtual monopolies when it comes to book sales and advertising on the Internet, should not censor media companies, given that even Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., conceded to Business Insider recently, “[Google] was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness and science-based thinking.”

AFP finally asked Goldman about Amazon’s book banning binge and if Section 230 allows Amazon to get away with this.

“Probably, but we may not need to get that far,” he said. “Retailers are not required to put any particular item on their shelves.”

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him. Dave is the producer of an upcoming full-length feature film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See erasingtheliberty.com for more information.