Is the GOP Staring at Another 1930?

Pat Buchanan warns, “The party of ‘tax and tax, spend and spend, and elect and elect’ appears to be reaching the end of its tether. Federal deficits are rising toward trillion-dollar levels,” even as the Republican base grows smaller. These are not the only factors that “point to a bad day for the GOP on Nov. 6.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

After the victory of Donald Trump in 2016, the GOP held the Senate and House, two-thirds of the governorships, and 1,000 more state legislators than they had on the day Barack Obama took office.

“The Republican Party has not been this dominant in 90 years,” went the exultant claim.

A year later, Republicans lost the governorship of Virginia and almost lost the legislature.

Came then the loss of a U.S. Senate seat in ruby-red Alabama.

Tuesday, Democrats captured a House seat in a Pennsylvania district Trump carried by 20 points, and where Democrats had not even fielded a candidate in 2014 and 2016.

Republicans lately congratulating themselves on a dominance not seen since 1928 might revisit what happened to the Class of 1928.

In 1930, Republicans lost 52 House seats, portending the loss of both houses of Congress and the White House in 1932 to FDR who would go on to win four straight terms. For the GOP, the ’30s were the dreadful decade.

Is the GOP staring at another 1930?


Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Unlike 1930, though, the nation has not endured a Great Crash or gone through year one of a Great Depression where unemployment hit 10% in June, when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed.

Today, the economy is moving along smartly. The labor force is larger than it has ever been. Workers are re-entering and seeking jobs. Black and Hispanic unemployment are at record lows. Confidence is high. Our Great Recession is 10 years in the past.

The problem for Republicans may be found in a truism: When the economy is poor, the economy is the issue. When the economy is good, something else is the issue.

A good economy did not save the GOP in the 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, where the party’s tax cut was derided by Democrat Conor Lamb as a wealth transfer to the rich. Nor did Lamb hurt himself by implying Republicans were planning to pay for their tax cut by robbing Social Security and Medicare.

Republican candidate Rick Saccone reportedly stopped using the tax cut as his major issue in his TV ads that ran closest to Election Day.

Other factors point to a bad day for the GOP on Nov. 6.

Republican retirees from Congress far outnumber Democratic retirees.

Democratic turnout has been reaching record highs, while GOP turnout has been normal. And even in the special elections Democrats have lost, they are outperforming the Democrats who lost in 2016.

Relying upon hostility to Trump to bring out the resistance, savvy Democrats are taking on the political coloration of their districts and states, rather than of the national party of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

There is, however, troubling news from Pennsylvania for Nancy Pelosi.

Lamb promised voters of “Deerhunter” country he would not support San Francisco Nancy for speaker. Look for Democrats in districts Trump carried to begin talking of the “need for new leaders.”

Trump seems fated to be the primary target of attack this fall, and not only in districts Clinton carried. For an average of national polls shows that disapproval of his presidency is 14 points higher than his approval rating. And this is when the economy is turning up good numbers not seen in this century.

At the national level, Democrats will turn 2018 into a referendum on the Trump persona and Trump presidency. For while the Trump base is loyal and solid, the anti-Trump base is equally so, and appreciably larger.

Lest we forget, Hillary Clinton, not the most charismatic candidate the Democrats have put up in decades, beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes. And while Trump pierced the famous “blue wall”—the 18 states that voted Democratic in every presidential election between 1992 and 2012—the demographic trend that created the wall is still working.

White voters, who tend to vote Republican, continue to decline as a share of the population. Peoples of color, who vote 70 to 90% Democratic in presidential elections, are now nearly 40% of the nation.

Mass migration into America is re-enforcing that trend.

Moreover, millennials, who have many elections ahead of them, are more liberal than seniors, who have fewer elections ahead and are the GOP base.

But if Republicans face problems of demography, the party of “tax and tax, spend and spend, and elect and elect” appears to be reaching the end of its tether. Federal deficits are rising toward trillion-dollar levels.

The five largest items in the budget—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, interest on the debt—are rising inexorably. And there appears no disposition in either party to cut back on spending for education, college loans, food stamps, housing assistance or infrastructure.

If the Fed did not retain the power to control the money supply, then the fate of New Jersey and Illinois, and beyond, of Greece and Argentina, would become our national destiny.

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. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.


Hate Crimes Charges Filed

The young man who made bomb threats against hundreds of Jewish community centers and institutions in 2016 was found to be a Jewish Israeli-American. Nonetheless, the Anti-Defamation League continues its absurd, ever-consistent hate-cry: “Make no mistake, these threats were acts of anti-Semitism and deserve to be treated as a hate crime.” Could the ADL’s nonsensical position finally be the straw that breaks this subversive, fear-mongering camel’s back?

By John Friend

A federal indictment has been brought against Michael Kadar, 19, the young Israeli-American man suspected of making hundreds of fake bomb threats and other hoax threats against Jewish community centers (JCCs) and other Jewish institutions across the U.S. last year, it was recently reported. The federal indictment includes hate crimes charges, cyberstalking, and making threats against the Israeli embassy, among other charges.

Kadar, who is Jewish, was arrested in Israel last March in a joint operation involving Israeli law enforcement officials and the FBI. He is currently awaiting trial in the Zionist entity where he also faces a number of other charges, including publishing false information, computer hacking, and money laundering. The recent federal indictment does not indicate whether or not Kadar would be extradited to the U.S. to face trial for his crimes here. Israel rarely allows its citizens to be extradited to face trial in foreign countries, even if they have dual citizenship. Federal grand juries in Florida, Georgia, and the District of Columbia brought the federal indictment against Kadar for making fake threats between January and March 2017, it was reported.

The fake bomb threats allegedly made by Kadar against JCCs, Jewish schools, and other Jewish institutions across the country last year generated major headlines and much controversy. At the time, many Jewish institutions were evacuated and the Jewish community and countless U.S. politicians, including President Donald Trump, railed against the supposed resurgence in anti-Semitism, which turned out to be entirely manufactured by Kadar’s fake bomb threats.

Hair Tissue Mineral Testing

“The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil,” Trump stated in late February of last year. Other political leaders made similar statements, hyping the alleged threat of anti-Semitism, bigotry, and racially inspired violence.

The American Jewish Committee published an open letter to Trump shortly after the threats began generating headlines, demanding that the president “condemn what has often been described as ‘the oldest hatred’—anti-Semitism—and [to] unleash the power of government to match deeds with words.”

No bombs were ever found at any of the JCCs and other Jewish institutions toward which Kadar had purportedly made threats, yet that did not stop Jewish groups from demanding more federal funding and protection. Jewish institutions increased their private security services in the wake of the fake bomb threats and used the threats to hysterically hype the alleged threat of anti-Semitism.

David Posner, the director of strategic performance of the JCC Association of North America, stated at the time that his organization was “relieved that all such threats have proven to be hoaxes and that not a single person was harmed,” yet he nevertheless was “concerned about the anti-Semitism behind these threats, and the repetition of threats intended to interfere with day-to-day life.”

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), one of the most subversive organizations operating on American soil today, praised the recent federal indictment brought against Kadar.

“Make no mistake, these threats were acts of anti-Semitism and deserve to be treated as a hate crime,” the ADL’s CEO Jona than Greenblatt stated in a press release following the announcement of the federal indictment. “They targeted Jewish institutions in order to stoke fear and anxiety and put the entire Jewish community on high alert.” Unsurprisingly, Greenblatt, like other Jewish leaders and U.S. politicians commenting on the case, failed to mention that Kadar is himself Jewish and holds dual Israeli-American citizenship.

“We applaud the diligent investigative work of the FBI, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the state and local law enforcement officials who made this investigation a high priority,” Greenblatt continued. “We especially appreciate the fact that these federal charges recognize that these threats constituted crimes—and we welcome the strong statements by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray recognizing the deep impact of hate violence. We again call on Congress to enact legislation to expand federal protections against bomb threats to religious institutions. The House of Representatives approved their version of this measure in December and now the Senate must act without hesitation.”

The ADL recently released a new report documenting what it considers to be anti-Semitic incidents in the United States during 2017, which include the fake threats purportedly made by Kadar. The report details 1,986 supposed anti-Semitic incidents, a 57% increase in such incidents as compared to 2016. The ADL and other Jewish organizations regularly hype the supposed threat of anti-Semitism and “hate” in order to advance political narratives beneficial to the organized Jewish community, which include lobbying for legislation cracking down on “hate speech” and criticism of Jews and other minorities more generally.

As this newspaper has reported on extensively, the vast majority of so-called “hate crimes” are manufactured by the victims themselves in order to advance and perpetuate a victimhood narrative and exaggerate the “threat” of anti-Semitism and racism in American society.

According to reports, it is unclear how many hoax threats Kadar made, but some estimate he called close to 2,000 institutions around the world.

In 2017, approximately 100 Jewish institutions in the U.S. received bomb threats, a fraction of the total number of bomb threats that other institutions in the U.S. face every year. According to the Educator’s School Safety Network (ESSN), a national non-profit school safety organization, that in 2016 1,267 bomb threats were reported by schools around the U.S. Following the recent massacre at a high school in Parkland, Fla., in February, schools across the U.S. have reported dozens of threats that have included bomb hoaxes.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.

This Is the Beginning of Totalitarian Government 

Donald Trump turned his back on his word to protect the Second Amendment as he enthusiastically picked up the gun control mantra and embraced enacting additional gun control laws. In response to the president’s surprising “green light” signal, gun control bills that had been assumed dead on arrival have been resurrected. 

By Chuck Baldwin

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas shootings last year in October, I wrote a column entitled “They Are Coming for Our Guns.” In that column, I listed 16 gun control bills that were working their way through the U.S. House and Senate. See the column here: They Are Coming for Our Guns.

At the time I wrote that column, the vast majority of conservatives, Republicans, and Christians paid no heed, because they said, “Donald Trump is ‘pro-Second Amendment’ and won’t let any more gun control legislation pass.”

Fast forward just four months later to after the Florida school shootings, and we watched and listened to Trump turn his back on his word to protect the Second Amendment as he enthusiastically picked up the gun control mantra of Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi and embraced enacting additional gun control laws.

Please understand: In spite of the mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas, gun control Democrats in Washington, D.C. were mostly stymied, and the myriad gun control laws they were pushing appeared dead on arrival. Trump had campaigned and won as a fierce defender of the Second Amendment, and everyone (including Democrats) figured that even if some gun control bills passed the Congress, Trump was sure to veto them.

Following the mass shooting in Florida, there was no surge in gun sales (which is not normally the case—usually gun sales skyrocket after mass shootings in anticipation of more gun control laws being enacted), as conservatives and gun owners were confident that their constitutional right to keep and bear arms was not in jeopardy: Trump would make sure of that.

But, as I have tried to warn people, Trump has no core convictions; he has no center; he has no moral compass; and he is a dish rag when it comes to the Constitution. Of the 16 gun control bills in Congress that I referenced in my October 2017 column, Trump is now actively supporting at least 10 of them.

In Trump’s highly publicized round-table discussion with members of Congress from both parties (including radical gun control zealots such as Dianne Feinstein), Trump announced that he favors implementing several additional gun control laws, including banning bump stocks (and similar “modifiers”), more background checks for gun purchases—including adding a variety of “mental health” screenings—and implementing the “Fix NICS” bill (a longtime goal of gun grabbing Democrats like Schumer and Feinstein).

In point of fact, the original “Fix NICS” bill was introduced under Barack Obama and included outlawing private gun sales. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie is warning the American people that the Republican leadership in Congress is trying to pass the “Fix NICS” bill this week. He warns of how devastating the bill will be to America’s veterans and seniors who will be thrown into the “no buy” list for a host of reasons. And will the bill include the original language outlawing the private sale of firearms? Don’t count it out.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

Trump also announced that he supported gun confiscation without due process. He twice said that government should take (confiscate) the guns first and worry about due process later. He then looked at Feinstein and told her he would support her bill. “Her” bill is the “assault-weapons” ban that would outlaw all semi-automatic rifles.

After Trump’s shameless calls for more gun control, the White House has tried to calm Trump’s conservative constituents by walking back several of those comments. That doesn’t change the fact that Trump said them—more than once. And it doesn’t change the fact that Trump is still forging ahead with plans to implement new gun control laws.

Again, until Trump made his stupid Stalinist statements supporting more gun control laws—even gun confiscation—the Democrat-led charge for more gun control was dead. However, after Trump’s stupid Stalinist statements, politicians in both parties have gone into a gun control frenzy.

Already, the Republican house, senate, and governor of Florida have enacted one of the most draconian gun control laws in U.S. history. The law bans the sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 21; it mandates a three-day waiting period for most gun purchases; it adds a “red flag” law that allows law enforcement to confiscate the firearms of individuals who have not committed a crime or have not even threatened to commit a crime—but who might be “suspected” of having “mental health” issues; it adds additional background checks for gun purchases; and it mandates “mental health” screening for all public school students in the state.

Shall Not Be Infringed, by Keene and Mason
Available from AFP’s Online Store

Again, these Marxist-inspired gun control laws were passed by a Republican-led House, Senate, and governorships.

Do you think for one minute that Trump’s pro-gun control rhetoric had nothing to do with the way those Republicans voted in Florida? Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. The party takes its cues from him. When Trump embraced and promoted the enactment of more gun control, it was a signal to Republicans and Democrats alike to proceed with more gun control. And that’s exactly what both parties are doing.

A few days ago, the state of Washington became the first state in the country to enforce its newly enacted “red flag” law and confiscate the firearm of a man who had broken no law and who had not even threatened anyone. His firearm was confiscated on the mere notion that he was “suspected” of having “mental health” issues. I wrote about this Gestapo-style episode last week.

Now, the state of Illinois is about to pass a law that would authorize blanket gun confiscation of everyone under the age of 21. Writing for American Thinker, Daniel John Sobieski writes:

It is no longer a conspiracy theory spawned by deplorable bitter clingers, but a creeping reality spawned by shootings law enforcement could have prevented but didn’t.  The Illinois House has passed legislation requiring 18- to 20-year-olds to give up certain legally purchased and legally owned firearms:

A bill requiring 18 to 20-year-olds to hand over or transfer ownership of heretofore legally possessed “assault weapons” is gaining sponsors in the Illinois Senate after passing the House last month.

The bill, HB 1465, was sponsored in the House by Rep. Michelle Mussman (D-Schaumburg) and passed by a vote of 64-51 on Feb. 28.

After being introduced in the upper house by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago), the bill has added seven co-sponsors in the last week.  Notable among them was Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove), the NRA “A” rated 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.

Gun confiscation is here.  First they will come for the young, who can go to war with guns but can no longer go hunting with them or protect their families.  If you are a 20-year-old single mom with a restraining order against a violent ex-boyfriend, well, you’ll just have to trust your life to 911 as your door is being kicked in.  Meanwhile, the government wants you to give it your guns.

Notice that Democrats and Republicans in Illinois are supporting this Marxist bill that confiscates guns from law-abiding people with no due process whatsoever.

Make no mistake about it, this is the beginning of totalitarian government.

As I noted in last week’s column, no fewer than 30 states have either already passed gun confiscation laws (Florida makes that number now seven) or are in the process of enacting gun confiscation laws.

Instead of enacting additional gun control laws, what our president, governors, and lawmakers should be doing is expunging existing gun control laws—including eliminating virtually all of America’s gun-free zones.

As Mr. Sobieski wrote:

It is typical of gun-control zealots that their answer to the slaughter invited by gun-free zones is to create more gun-free victims.  Those who fear an armed citizenry are typically those who believe that all rights are on loan from an all-powerful government. The Founders wisely wrote the Second Amendment to protect the other nine in the Bill of Rights.

Critics of the Second Amendment say they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting.  But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season.

In the hands of British redcoats, the musket was an assault weapon.  In the hands of a law-abiding American, even those between 18 and 20, an AR-15 is what the Second Amendment is all about.

Hear! Hear!

It is time for the American people to forget about which party controls Congress and who is in the White House and start standing en masse for the Constitution and Bill of Rights—and against any new gun control laws—or the Second Amendment (and the rest of our liberties) will soon be toast.

I want to once again remind readers that self-defense—including defense against tyrannical government—is more than a right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to our Constitution; it is a duty assigned us in nature by our Creator. For anyone, especially a Christian, to willingly surrender their means of self-defense is not only a crime against liberty; it is a sin against God.

I urge my Christian friends (and anyone else) to read the book my constitutional attorney son and I wrote entitled To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.

Mark it down: Any law demanding free men to surrender their arms—especially their AR-15 rifle—is unconstitutional, unnatural, immoral, and unbiblical. And no Christian or any other free man should ever comply with such a law.

I know that there is a plethora of pastors who teach that Christians ought to obey the government should it outlaw our guns. They are wrong. They are wrong biblically, constitutionally, and morally.

Our book shows the natural and biblical duty of self-defense. I don’t know of another book like it. Many books deal with this subject from a constitutional perspective, but none that I know of deals with this subject from a biblical perspective. And make no mistake about it: The right to keep and bear arms is as much a moral and biblical issue as it is a political and constitutional issue.

With all that is happening today, it is crucial that people (especially Christians) become familiar with the truths contained in this book. I urge you to order one for yourself and one (at least) for your friends and kinfolk—and maybe for your pastor. Order To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns here.

Chuck Baldwin is a radio broadcaster, syndicated columnist, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded.

Globalists & Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?

Since their beginnings in 18th-century Britain, free-trade proponents have been tirelessly working to globalize our world, much to the consternation of patriotic countrymen everywhere. Nationalism is rising, however. As Buchanan writes, “The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx of foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.

Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.”

His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.

Hair Tissue Mineral Testing

This free-trade, open-borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.

In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:

“I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe—drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the “American System,” had been embraced.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people . . . should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing, and defence.”

This was wisdom born of experience.

At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence.

They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the necessities of our national life and establish new bonds of mutual dependency—among Americans.

Britain’s folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies, and arms she needed to survive but could not produce.

America’s own first major steps toward free trade, open borders, and globalism came with JFK’s Trade Expansion Act and LBJ’s Immigration Act of 1965.

By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in and a great awakening begun. U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of the country.

Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation’s manufacturing base and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this Earth there is no greater loss.

The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.

We see it in Trump’s hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.

We see it in England’s declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian, and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.

Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med, desperate to come and occupy their homelands.

Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?

The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer—a world of free trade, open borders, and global government—are constructs of the mind that do not engage the heart.

Men will fight for family, faith, and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity?

Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?

On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.

Patriotism trumps ideology.

In Present at the Creation, Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The UN, IMF, World Bank, Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.

We are present now at the end of all that.

And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.

To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence, and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.

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. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.


PC Police Strike

A young woman has been removed from her Florida middle-school teaching job for expressing cultural views online-under a pseudonym-after the PC police at a far-left website made it their mission to get the woman fired. Political correctness had taken on a whole new significance in the U.S., as increasing numbers of Americans lose jobs and reputations due to speaking their minds, regardless of the First Amendment.

By John Friend

A 25-year-old middle-school teacher in Florida has been “removed from the classroom” following controversy sparked by an article published last weekend by the far-left “Huffington Post” commentary website highlighting the teacher’s politically incorrect social media posts and podcast program, it was recently reported.

Dayanna Volitich, who taught social studies at Crystal River Middle School in the Citrus County School District in Florida, used the online pseudonym “Tiana Dalichov” to post on social media, including Twitter, and to host her podcast program called “Unapologetic,” which addressed a number of controversial issues facing America and the wider world in a straightforward, honest manner. On the podcast, which has since been removed from the Internet along with her social media profiles, Ms. Volitich discussed a variety of complex and controversial issues, including mass immigration, state enforced diversity and multiculturalism, educational issues, and related topics.

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

Reporters from the Huffington Post went so far as to contact the school, which prompted an internal investigation ultimately resulting in the teacher’s ouster. Other Americans, including this reporter, have been targeted by malicious reporters in recent years in an effort to harm their professional careers and bring damage to their reputations, as was the case with Ms. Volitich.

“On Friday, March 2, 2018 the Citrus County School District was made aware of a concerning podcast by a Huffington Post reporter,” Sandra Himmel, Citrus County School District superintendent, announced on Sunday in an official statement posted on the school district’s Facebook page. “The reporter indicated they believed one of the persons participating in the podcast was a teacher at Crystal River Middle School. The human resources department was notified and an investigation was initiated immediately. The teacher has been removed from the classroom and the investigation is ongoing. Pursuant to Florida statute an open investigation and materials related to it are exempt from public record and cannot be discussed until the investigation is complete.”

Efforts by AFP to contact Ms. Volitich have thus far been unsuccessful.

In the Huffington Post article, the biased, left-leaning outlet published a number of screen shots of tweets “Tiana Dalichov” made in the past in an effort to demonize her and smear her as a “white supremacist” and “racist.” The tweets highlighted by the Huffington Post indicate Ms. Volitich was a critic of the dubious concept known as “white privilege,” an anti-white, Marxist perspective endlessly promoted and disseminated on college campuses and schools across the country. Ms. Volitich was also apparently interested in “the Jewish Question,” with one tweet noting that she was reading Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s book, The Culture of Critique.

In one tweet, which the Huffington Post and other leftists used to hysterically demonize Ms. Volitich and paint her as a radical “white supremacist,” she harmlessly stated: “It isn’t supremacist or hateful to prefer your own people over others.”

The Citrus County School District was quick to denounce Ms. Volitich following the publication of the malicious Huffington Post article, removing her from the classroom almost immediately.

“She does not speak on behalf of the Citrus County School District,” Scott Hebert, the executive director of educational services for the district, told the Huffington Post. “The views she’s listed [online] are really not in line with how our district operates.”

The ouster of Ms. Volitich demonstrates once again the perilous state of free speech in America today. Those holding controversial and politically incorrect opinions are regularly targeted by the hostile mass media and radical activist organizations such as antifa in an effort to censor their speech, harm their reputations, and, if possible, jeopardize their professional life.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.

Protests Greet Israel Lobby’s Annual Gathering

With Palestine remaining an open-air concentration camp under Israeli occupation, protests were held Washington D.C. outside the annual AIPAC convention. Among many others worldwide, increasing numbers of Jews, including in Israel, oppose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s heavy-handed, violent tactics. 

By Mark Anderson

Palestinian activists and supporters, including the Right to Return Coalition (Al-Awda) and the ANSWER Coalition, held several protests before and during the March 4-6 national convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC—one of Washington D.C.’s most powerful lobbies.

“For over a century, the Palestinian people have been struggling against colonial rulers for . . . self-determination,” noted a news release announcing these groups’ opposition to “the racist American Israel Public Affairs Committee.”

The large annual AIPAC gathering at the Mount Vernon Convention Center included remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also met with President Trump at the White House mainly to discuss the perceived Iranian threat to Israel and Trump’s stated intent to back out of the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

Netanyahu, hamstrung by scandals at home, has proven himself to be a particularly militant aggressor against Palestinians. Even some liberal Jews, in Israel and abroad, as well as anti-Zionist orthodox rabbis who take part in the Washington protests, disapprove of the Netanyahu regime’s documented and disproportionately deadly attacks against Palestinians and the imposition of a police state over them.

A young girl whose plight was recognized during a March 3 “Free Ahed” D.C. rally has come to symbolize that tyranny.

The “Free Ahed” movement refers to Ahed Tamimi, a 16-year-old Palestinian girl reportedly taken in the dead of night by Israeli soldiers. After her mother, Nariman, produced a video that went viral—showing an altercation involving soldiers trying to enter the family dwelling—the girl was arrested.

According to “,” “Ahed is accused of slapping a soldier and faces 12 charges in Israel’s military court, which has a conviction rate of 99%. Ahed’s mother is being charged with incitement for posting the video.”

Ironically, while the protestors also held a forum on the history of Palestine’s liberation struggle, from Israel’s 1948 founding to the present, University of Oslo history professor Ken Rossinow, writing March 6 in The Washington Post, of all places, put forth one of the most critical articles of Israel ever to appear in a major mainstream newspaper in recent memory.

Under the jolting headline, “The Dark Roots of AIPAC, ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’ “—underscored by the subheading, “The group was formed to spin positive PR after Israeli atrocities”—Rossinow outlined the lengths to which the Israeli state has gone to stay on good terms with its ultimate benefactors: U.S. taxpayers.

AIPAC’s beginnings as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, renamed AIPAC in 1959, “reveal the long journey the group has traveled. . . . It once operated in obscurity; now its influence lies partly in its genius for publicity. . . . It has always responded to Israeli actions, working to mitigate their impact on the American scene,” Rossinow wrote.

That mitigation keeps the $3.8 billion a year in official U.S. foreign aid flowing mainly to Israel’s military, enabling it to continue oppressing Palestinians.

According to Rossinow, in latter 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower “briefly suspended the delivery of U.S. aid to Israel after it violated the terms of a UN-brokered armistice agreement with Syria . . .”

And while Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles tried to get Israel to back down, on Oct. 15, 1953 a special Israeli army unit “had struck into the Jordanian-occupied West Bank and committed a massacre in the Palestinian village of Qibya, killing more than 60 civilians indiscriminately” in retaliation for the reported Oct. 12 murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.

Rossinow stressed that after the Oct. 12 killings, then-Israeli PM Ben-Gurion and top colleagues chose nearby Qibya “to suffer retribution” in an intentionally disproportionate and brutal manner, launching what has become standard Israeli policy.

In response, yesteryear’s American media wasn’t so reticent on revealing Israeli terror. Even Time magazine, wrote Rossinow, “carried a shocking account of . . . casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya —‘slouching . . . smoking and joking.’ ” Moreover, The New York Times—you read that correctly—published what Rossinow described as “extensive excerpts from a UN commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident.”

Since AIPAC is an unregistered agent of a foreign power, the proper mitigation is to require that AIPAC register as a foreign agent under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. AIPAC would then have to publicly acknowledge it’s working on behalf of a foreign government and submit its income sources for review.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful emails at

Time to Investigate ‘Israelgate’

If the FBI director wants to uncover foreign meddling in U.S. elections, says Phil Giraldi, he ought to look at Israel, and specifically, NSA-designee Michael Flynn’s call, at Benjamin Netanyahu’s request via Jared Kushner, to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on Dec. 22, 2016.

By Philip Giraldi

Recently there was a slight misunderstanding between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu claimed that the Trump administration had been discussing with him a plan for annexing the large Israeli settlements—illegal under international law—on the Palestinian West Bank. He told a Likud Party gathering that “on the subject of applying sovereignty, I can say that I have been talking to the Americans about it for some time.” White House spokesman Josh Raffel responded testily for the president, saying that “reports that the United States discussed with Israel an annexation plan for the West Bank are false. The United States and Israel have never discussed such a proposal. . . .”

Was it just another misunderstanding between two friends who also happen to be heads of state? Hardly. Netanyahu expected the White House to rubber stamp whatever he decided to do. That has been the way it has worked with Trump up until now and the assumption by Netanyahu was that it would continue to operate in the same fashion.

Score one for Trump, who also dropped a bomb on Netanyahu by opining that Israel might not be truly interested in making peace with the Palestinians. It was not a brilliant observation, but it was welcome nevertheless.

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

The sideshow that is Israel’s manipulation of the United States government has recently played out largely behind the scenes while much bigger dramas were surfacing relating to the various investigations surrounding the 2016 elections. A major revelation was provided by the so-called “Nunes memo,” prepared by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, which maintained that the salacious and largely fabricated Democratic National Committee-commissioned “Steele dossier” had been used as a primary source by the FBI in obtaining a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to investigate a Trump staffer over suspicion that he was acting as an agent of Russia. This was followed by a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), which filled in some of the blanks in the Nunes memo by providing convincing detail on the activity of former British spy Christopher Steele in making the case against Trump with the apparent collaboration of the FBI and others in the intelligence community.

And the most recent bombshell is that the Robert Mueller commission investigating the Trump campaign has finally issued an indictment in its seemingly endless investigation, naming 13 Russians and three Russian entities as being involved in conspiracy and identity theft relating to the election.

But somehow lost in the shuffle is the Israeli connection, which all started when Trump National Security Adviser designate Michael Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, on Dec. 22, 2016. The call was made at the direction of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, in turn, had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama administration was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a UN resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included the call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23.

What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn? He asked the soon-to-be national security adviser to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms this does not quite equate to the Constitution’s definition of treason since Israel is not technically an enemy, but it most certainly could be construed as covered by the “conspiracy against the United States” statute that the Mueller investigation has exploited against former Trump associate Paul Manafort and also in the recent Russian indictments.

Mueller’s indictment, which was publicized on Feb. 16, claims that the Russians created false U.S. personas while also stealing the identities of real U.S. people in order to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. The indictment states that the goal of the entities and people identified was to both influence and disrupt the election, with some defendants posing as “U.S. people” communicating with “individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.”

The “defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton,” the indictment reads, but it does not maintain that they had “any effect on the outcome of the election.” Purchases were made “to carry out those activities, including buying [$100,000 worth of] political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities.” The accused Russians are being charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft.

In the case of the Kislyak phone call, initiated by Kushner acting for Israel, Russia is being accused of involvement in activity that Israel engages in all the time and in the open. Israel has always been involved in U.S. elections down to the local level, most notably in promoting Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in 2012, and it has an enormous and well-funded lobby in AIPAC that interferes aggressively in American foreign and domestic policy formulation through “coordinating political activities” to benefit Israel. And the Israeli government’s propaganda arm uses its hasbara to go around the Internet with false identities to confuse and deflect stories that are critical of the Netanyahu government. They do so routinely and do not even try to hide what they are doing. Part of their agenda is to smear critics and elect politicians favorable to them.

So when will Mueller and the several congressional committees that are investigating the Russians move on to the topic of Israel to find out what a really effective foreign influencing operation looks like? Given Israel’s power over Congress, probably never.

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.

Fatal Delusions of Western Man

Regarding trade imports from China, Buchanan says, “We fed the tiger, and created a monster.” Elites of both parties are responsible for this “epochal blunder,” and he says the import of millions of immigrants will lead to a similar outcome.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“We got China wrong. Now what?” ran the headline over the column in The Washington Post.

“Remember how American engagement with China was going to make that communist backwater more like the democratic, capitalist West?” asked Charles Lane in his opening sentence.

America’s elites believed that economic engagement and the opening of U.S. markets would cause the People’s Republic to coexist benignly with its neighbors and the West.

We deluded ourselves. It did not happen.

Xi Jinping just changed China’s constitution to allow him to be dictator for life. He continues to thieve intellectual property from U.S. companies and to occupy and fortify islets in the South China Sea, which Beijing now claims as entirely its own.

Meanwhile, China sustains North Korea as Chinese warplanes and warships circumnavigate Taiwan threatening its independence.

We today confront a Chinese Communist dictatorship and superpower that seeks to displace America as first power on earth, and to drive the U.S. military back across the Pacific.

Hair Tissue Mineral Testing

Who is responsible for this epochal blunder?

The elites of both parties. Bush Republicans from the 1990s granted China most-favored-nation status and threw open America’s market.

Result: China has run up $4 trillion in trade surpluses with the United States. Her $375 billion trade surplus with us in 2017 far exceeded the entire Chinese defense budget.

We fed the tiger, and created a monster.

Why? What is in the mind of Western man that our leaders continue to adopt policies rooted in hopes unjustified by reality?

Recall. Stalin was a murderous tyrant unrivaled in history whose victims in 1939 were 1,000 times those of Adolf Hitler, with whom he eagerly partnered in return for the freedom to rape the Baltic States and bite off half of Poland.

When Hitler turned on Stalin, the Bolshevik butcher rushed to the West for aid. Churchill and FDR hailed him in encomiums that would have made Pericles blush. At Yalta, Churchill rose to toast the butcher:

“I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world. … We regard Marshal Stalin’s life as most precious to the hopes and hearts of all of us.”

Returning home, Churchill assured a skeptical Parliament, “I know of no Government which stands to its obligations, even in its own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government.”

George W. Bush, with the U.S. establishment united behind him, invaded Iraq with the goal of creating a Vermont in the Middle East that would be a beacon of democracy to the Arab and Islamic world.

Ex-Director of the NSA Gen. William Odom correctly called the U.S. invasion the greatest strategic blunder in American history. But Bush, un-chastened, went on to preach a crusade for democracy with the goal of “ending tyranny in our world.”

What is the root of these astounding beliefs — that Stalin would be a partner for peace, that if we built up Mao’s China she would become benign and benevolent, that we could reshape Islamic nations into replicas of Western democracies, that we could eradicate tyranny?

Today, we are replicating these historic follies.

After our victory in the Cold War, we not only plunged into the Middle East to remake it in our image, we issued war guarantees to every ex-member state of the Warsaw Pact, and threatened Russia with war if she ever intervened again in the Baltic Republics.

No Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing such an in-your-face challenge to a great nuclear power like Russia.

If Putin’s Russia does not become the pacifist nation it has never been, these guarantees will one day be called. And America will either back down — or face a nuclear confrontation.

Why would we risk something like this?

Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built a great nation.

Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers’ wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history.

But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants, many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million, composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.

Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation and one people?

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. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.


Law Enforcement Failures, Corruption to Blame for School Shooting, Not Guns

Yet another government agency is mired in “misconduct,” and this time the deaths of 17 students and teachers is drawing more attention to the criminal behavior. Could potential lawsuits filed by an angry, grieving school community be the tipping point to clean up an apparently dirty sheriff’s department?

By Sophia Myer 

Lawsuits could be filed against Florida’s Broward County Sheriff’s Department (BSO) and Sheriff Scott Israel (D) if extensive research reported by a blogger called Sundance at “The Conservative Treehouse” website proves accurate. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, site of the Feb. 14 shooting by 19-year-old expelled student Nikolas Cruz that left 17 people dead, is in South Florida’s Broward County.

In the wake of this latest schoolyard massacre, the media has revealed the sheriff’s department had been contacted between 23 and 39 times over the course of about 10 years by Cruz’s family and others concerned about his violent outbursts and actions, mental health struggles, and wellbeing. The Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) had conducted what it calls an investigation at one point, but it closed the case without referring the boy for case management services. The nonprofit mental health agency tasked with assessing Cruz on two occasions, Henderson Behavioral Health, failed to recommend holding him for assessment under the Baker Act, Florida’s law that allows temporary detention in a mental health facility for the purposes of psychological evaluation, despite school counselors’ concerns.

Cruz had been diagnosed with autism and multiple mental health disorders. As a longtime student in the Broward County Public Schools system, he surely should have been receiving extensive exceptional student services up until Douglas High School finally expelled him earlier this year for fighting.

Hair doesn't lie! $199 Hair Tissue Mineral Analysis

The Broward District Schools Police, which says on its website it provides the district’s “law enforcement services through collaborative partnerships with the county’s municipal police departments and the Sheriff’s office,” certainly knew of Cruz’s previous violent incidents and should have been monitoring him. Yet the school resource officer at Douglas high and as many as three other deputies remained outside the building as shots rang out rather than rushing in to stop the carnage. Fortunately, the killing spree came to an end without their help when Cruz’s gun jammed, according to witnesses.

On top of all these local “safety valves,” the FBI had received at least one specific warning about Cruz that he commented he would become a “professional school shooter.” Apparently, no one at the bureau thought to notify the South Florida branch.

Among these myriad warnings provided to law enforcement and other officials tasked with keeping Floridians safe, some people, including Cruz’s family members, even went so far as to express concern specifically that he was “a school shooter in the making.”

Yet in spite of all of these warnings, Cruz was not prevented from legally purchasing a firearm in spite of background checks having been conducted, according to the media. He is reported to have owned multiple weapons, none of which were ever confiscated in spite of his apparent proclivity toward violence and obvious mental health issues. And he was never arrested or Baker Acted (held involuntarily for psychological evaluation) even once, if reporting is accurate.

This level of incompetence at every level is stunning, and Gov. Rick Scott (R) has ordered an investigation into the massive failures within Sheriff Israel’s department. Many residents are demanding that investigation be broadened to include the other agencies that failed to prevent the murders.

However, an article published at “” based on research conducted by the blogger Sundance reveals this utter lack of action to prevent Cruz from using a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 to slaughter students and teachers cannot be blamed on incompetence. Instead, asserts the author, it is because “at every level, the government failed us by not enforcing our laws or even abiding by simple, logical standards of behavior,” and involves the Broward County School District and local law enforcement agencies.

The core of the problem, explains the article, stems from an effort between the agencies to end the longstanding disproportionate levels of exclusionary discipline being meted out to black students—laudable on its face—that turned into a willful, coordinated failure to arrest youth for crimes from minor misdemeanors to even felonies.

A report at “The Last Refuge” blog on “Conservative Treehouse” explains: “Over time, even the most severe of unlawful conduct was being filtered by responding police. We found out about it when six cops blew the whistle on severe criminal conduct they were being instructed to hide. The sheriff and police chiefs were telling street cops and school cops to ignore ever-worsening criminal conduct.” Results of an internal investigation were buried, the article notes.

Battlefield America Whitehead cover
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Now, RT reports corruption at BSO runs even deeper, and the department is currently “facing a total of 66 misconduct investigations” into a series of “accusations that Israel’s deputies and other employees are responsible for drug-trafficking, armed kidnapping, falsifying records, battery, assault and more,” over the last six years. A lawsuit against the department for the shooting death of an unarmed man in 2013 notes, “Approximately 66 BSO deputies and other employees, including supervisory personnel were arrested for, charged with, and/or convicted of crimes that run the gamut from armed kidnapping, to battery, assault, falsifying records, official misconduct, narcotics trafficking, and other crimes involving dishonesty and violence in the years immediately proceeding [sic] 2013 when Jermaine was killed. Most of the offenses on the list occurred in the years 2012-2013,” writes RT.

The “FreedomOutpost” article suggests: “Instead of worrying about guns, the media should be asking how could local police pay 39 different visits (Broward police claim it was ‘only’ 23 visits) to one student without that student ever spending time in prison or a psychiatric ward. They should be asking why the local police wouldn’t share information about this high school kid with social services or other law enforcement agencies.” The media should also be questioning why that young man did not have a criminal or mental illness-related record, which would have barred him from legally purchasing firearms.

Regardless of apparent wrongdoing in his department for many years, Sheriff Israel had the audacity to say, “I’ve given amazing leadership to this agency,” during a segment on CNN. He has repeatedly rejected statewide, bipartisan calls for him to resign. “Of course, I will not resign.”

The cowardly school resource officer (SRO) who failed to do anything to protect the students he’d worked with for 25 years when called upon to do so has resigned in shame after being suspended by the sheriff. Asked what he thought of the SRO’s inaction, Sheriff Israel stated, “Devastated. Sick to my stomach. There are no words.” Many Floridians, including the grieving and outraged parents, families, and friends of the most recent victims, might offer the same response if asked how they feel about the years of corruption under Sheriff Israel’s command.

The investigation ordered by Gov. Scott must dig much deeper than simply into the failures to prevent or respond properly to the rampage at Douglas High School. It needs to uncover the dirt that must be cleaned up and should clean out the BSO personnel who have allegedly unjustly imprisoned and otherwise destroyed the lives of many while profiting from their deep corruption. Prison cells will be freed up and ready for these unethical “public servants” when that happens.

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

The Eternal Lure of Nationalism

While the global elites continue to argue we must become “one happy global family” for the good of the planet, people everywhere are choosing nationalism instead. Examples from the winter Olympic games, Putin’s popularity, the Brexit vote, and our own “America-first” focus suggest the NWO is not winning this argument.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In a surprise overtime victory in the finals of the Olympic men’s hockey tournament, the Russians defeated Germany, 4-3.

But the Russians were not permitted to have their national anthem played or flag raised, due to a past doping scandal. So, the team ignored the prohibition and sang out the Russian national anthem over the sounds of the Olympic anthem.

One recalls the scene in “Casablanca,” where French patrons of Rick’s saloon stood and loudly sang the “La Marseillaise” to drown out the “Die Wacht am Rhein” being sung by a table of German officers.

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

When the combined North-South Korean Olympic team entered the stadium, Vice President Mike Pence remained seated and silent. But tens of thousands of Koreans stood and cheered the unified team.

America may provide a defensive shield for the South, but Koreans on both sides of the DMZ see themselves as one people. And, no fool, Kim Jong Un is exploiting the deep tribal ties he knows are there.

Watching the Russians defiantly belt out their anthem, one recalls also the 1968 summer Olympics in Mexico City where sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the podium, black gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate racial identity.

Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all about.

Some attendees at the CPAC conclave this past week were appalled that Britain’s Nigel Farage and France’s Marion Le Pen were present.

But Farage was the man most responsible for Brexit, the historic British decision to leave the EU. Le Pen is perhaps the most popular figure in a National Front (NF) Party that won 35% of the vote in the runoff election won by President Emmanuel Macron.

And the most unifying stand of the NF appears to be “Let France Be France!” The French people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants from Africa and the Islamic world.

New World Order In Action, Vol. 1, by Takis Fotopolous
“Globalization, the Brexit Revolution and the ‘Left’ ” – Order now from AFP Online Store while this book is on sale!

They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?

Is preservation of a country, the national family one grew up in, not conservative?

In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history and culture, is already ascendant.

Globalists may see the UN, EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a “universal nation” of all races, tribes, cultures, and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grandparents had, a nation-state that is all their own.

Nationalists like Farage, who seek to pull their countries out of socialist superstates like the EU, and peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, and Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.

Why are European peoples who wish to halt mass migration from across the Med, to preserve who and what they are, decried as racists?

Did not the peoples of African and Middle Eastern countries, half a century ago, expel the European settlers who helped to build those countries?

The Rhodesia of Spitfire pilot Ian Smith was a jewel of a nation of 250,000 whites and several million blacks that produced trade surpluses even when boycotted and sanctioned by a hating world.

When Smith was forced to yield power, “Comrade Bob” Mugabe took over and began the looting of white Rhodesians and led his Shona tribesmen in a slaughter of the Matabele of rival Joshua Nkomo.

Eighty-five percent of the white folks who lived in Rhodesia, prior to “majority rule,” are gone from Zimbabwe. More than half of the white folks who made South Africa the most advanced and prosperous country on the continent are gone.

Are these countries better places than they were? For whom?

Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free trade, and global custody of mankind’s destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution.

Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future?

Consider the largest countries on Earth. In China, ethnonationalism, not the ruling Communist Party, unites and inspires 1.4 billion people to displace the Americans as the first power on Earth.

Nationalism sustains Vladimir Putin. Nationalism and its unique identity as a Hindu nation unites and powers India.

Here, today, it is “America-first” nationalism.

Indeed, now that George W. Bush’s crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit’s Children’s Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people?

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 Online Store


Is the (Tea) Party Over?

Initially formed to fight the “too big to fail” bank bailouts, the tea party grew quickly, opposing “big spenders in both parties.” Almost overnight the tea part was coopted by the GOP, however, when the danger of this informed, organized citizenry was realized. The tea party has since abandoned its focus on fiscal conservatism as it backs neocon-driven militarism, and many are asking if the tea party is dead.

By Ron Paul

The recently passed big-spending budget deal’s failure to generate significant opposition from the “tea party” has led some to pen obituaries for this once-powerful movement. These commentators may have a point. However, few of them understand the true causes of the tea party’s demise.

The movement commonly referred to as the tea party arose in opposition to the 2008 bank bailouts. The tea party grew as its focus shifted to opposition to President Obama’s policies, particularly his stimulus spending bill, cap-and-trade legislation, and, of course, the healthcare plan tea party leaders successfully branded as Obamacare. In its early days, the tea party was equally opposed to big spenders in both parties. In fact, it was often harder on Republicans than on Democrats. Tea party groups even backed primary challengers to Republican incumbents.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Unfortunately, the tea party was quickly coopted by the GOP. As a result, while tea party groups still opposed Republican policies, they began muting their opposition to all but the worst Republican politicians. Now that Republicans control the White House and Congress, tea party groups have even muted their opposition to the policies. This reinforces the tendency of Republicans to support spending bills backed by Donald Trump or George W. Bush that they would have fought tooth and nail if they were proposed by Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.

The tea party’s effectiveness as a force for fiscal conservatism was also crippled by the support of too many of its leaders and favorite politicians for a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. Support for foreign interventionism logically requires support for huge military budgets, which conflicts with a commitment to fiscal conservatism.

Some tea party-backed politicians tried to reconcile support for militarism and fiscal conservatism by claiming to be “cheap hawks.” The problem with this formulation is that the so-called cheap hawks accept the neoconservative premise that American exceptionalism justifies US military intervention around the globe. This makes it impossible for them to resist the calls for increased military spending to ensure the United States has the ability to police the world in the name of “democracy.”

Devotion to protecting the military-industrial complex from the budget ax leads defense hawks to cut deals with progressives to increase spending on both warfare and welfare. We saw this with the recent budget deal, where so-called fiscal conservatives defended a $65 billion increase in domestic spending because it was necessary to get progressive support for an $80 billion increase in military spending. One cannot be both a budget hawk and a defense hawk.

Fortunately, while the tea party is dead or at least on life support, a related movement is alive and growing. This is the liberty movement that grew out of my 2008 presidential campaign. Ironically, one of the first events of that movement was called a “tea party.”

Unlike the tea party, the liberty movement does not just focus on domestic policy. It works to roll back government in all areas. Thus, the liberty movement is just as committed to ending unnecessary and unconstitutional wars and protecting civil liberties as it is to repealing Obamacare. Liberty movement leaders and activists also refuse to compromise their principles for the benefit of the Republican Party. The commitment to consistency and principle may be why the liberty movement is so attractive to young people. This growing movement is a source of hope that the cause of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government will prevail.

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

Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute

Why Martin Luther King Distrusted Jesse Jackson

Famed civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and many in his organization were leery of the upstart Jesse Jackson, who they saw as race baiting and conflict driven. In addition, everyone else at the SCLC was a minister. Jackson’s unenthusiastic and short-lived attendance at seminary made clear he was not interested in pastoring a flock, yet he found a way to work the system and put the “Rev.” in front of his name. Surely worst, however, in Jackson’s never-ending pursuit of self-promotion was his callous disregard for Dr. King’s honor at the time of his assassination.

By S.T. Patrick

This April marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorials will be held, scholarships will be dedicated, legislative resolutions will be passed, books will be published, and documentaries will be released. The tragic events of April 1968 included both the killing of King and the false blame attributed to James Earl Ray. Many may have forgotten that King’s death also marked the dubious rise of “Reverend” Jesse Jackson.

King had accepted an invitation to speak at the church of Rev. Clay Evans on the south side of Chicago in 1966, where Jackson, having met King in Selma, Ala. in 1965 and always one to seize an opportunity, pushed himself closer to King throughout the visit. He picked King up at the airport and hobnobbed with his team enough to earn a staff job and an annual salary of $3,000 from the King organization.

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

Despite his official inclusion on King’s staff, King soon found himself unimpressed with aspects of Jackson’s personality. He was especially troubled with Jackson’s reflexive ability to escalate encounters with government officials, police departments, and innocent bystanders.

As Kenneth R. Timmerman, the author of Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson, wrote, “King left Chicago profoundly suspicious of Jackson’s taste for self-promotion.”

No matter how hard Jackson may have worked to get to the front of the line of luminaries within the late 1960s civil rights movement, he lacked one thing that King’s closest confidants possessed: Jackson wasn’t a man of the cloth.

“Dr. King told Jesse that everybody who worked in the movement was a minister,” said Hurley Green, a former speechwriter, columnist, and friend of Jackson, “so Jesse went to seminary for six months, dropped out, and called himself a minister.”

Jackson’s limited time spent at the Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS) was verified by Chaplain A. Knighton Stanley, who stated that Jackson was not committed to the church nor had he discovered a true vocation. Jackson had even failed to fulfill the required class on sermon writing and delivery that one would think would be important for someone truly interested in the ministry and communicating with his flock.

Jackson later clarified why he attended CTS for the time that he did. “I decided to go to seminary to learn how to do without the law to change society, to change it in deeper ways,” he said.

The distrust and exasperation King had with Jackson continued through 1968. In Memphis, one week before the assassination, King made a decision to cancel participation in a demonstration that he believed could turn violent. Jackson, in front of King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) staff, boisterously disagreed with King’s cancellation of the march.

Angry at Jackson’s response, King walked out of the meeting. The team neared the breaking point with Jackson as they, as Timmerman wrote, “mistrusted his ambition, his audacity, and his refusal to be a team player.” They could have never imagined the depths to which Jackson would sink a week later.

An Act of State, by William F. Pepper

An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, by William F. Pepper: On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King was in Memphis supporting a worker strike. By nightfall, army snipers were in position, military officers were on a nearby roof with cameras, and Lloyd Jowers had been paid to remove the gun after the fatal shot was fired. When the dust had settled, King had been hit and a clean-up operation was set in motion—James Earl Ray was framed, the crime scene was destroyed, and witnesses were killed. William Pepper, attorney and friend of King, has conducted a 30-year investigation into his assassination. In 1999, Lloyd Jowers and other co-conspirators were brought to trial in a civil action suit on behalf of the King family. Seventy witnesses set out the details of a conspiracy that involved J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Richard Helms and the CIA, the military, Memphis police, and organized crime. The jury took an hour to find for the King family. In An Act of State, you finally have the truth before you—how the U.S. government shut down a movement for social change by stopping its leader dead in his tracks. Get the updated version of William F. Pepper’s tour de force (softcover, 350 pages, $22 plus $4 S&H inside the U.S.) from the AFP Online Store.

As King lay dying on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, Jackson claims—and has claimed since 1968—that he was the last to speak to King and cradled King’s head as he died. Jackson then appeared on Chicago television the next day, wearing a bloody turtleneck that he said was stained with the blood of the fallen civil rights leader. King associates have always challenged Jackson’s self-described role on that day as fabricated and distasteful. Jackson, in reality, was in the parking lot below. Critics also claim that Jackson went so far as to wipe King’s blood on his shirt for the sole purpose of going on television to build his own legend.

After King’s death, the leadership of the SCLC fell into the hands of MLK’s chosen successor, Ralph Abernathy. Jackson almost immediately clashed with Abernathy, about whom Jackson famously exclaimed to biographer Eddie Stone, “I never listen to that ni**er!”

Abernathy isn’t the only civil rights leader to incur the wrath of Jackson’s ambition. There have also been conflicts with Minister Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Al Sharpton, and former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young. If anyone challenged Jackson’s stranglehold on the role of civil rights media darling and ace pundit, Jackson viewed them as a threat.

Jackson did eventually become a minister, of sorts. CTS offered him a master’s degree in divinity in 2000. The only requirement for such was that he engage in a two-hour discussion with a professor on the topics of abortion and the death penalty. Sitting on the board of CTS in 2000 was Jesse Jackson Jr., the young Democratic member of Congress.

Jackson had used the title of “Reverend” since his early days as a community organizer, even without an education in theology. He rose to stardom on the basis of a history with Dr. King that was contentious and in many cases untrue. He stayed in power by extorting companies out of donations with race-based threats. And he has built an enemies list—white, black, and international—as long as anyone in contemporary American history. He keeps hope alive that his legacy will someday find itself parallel to King’s, yet like his coalition, his greatest dreams may only be found somewhere over the rainbow.

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

American Traitors Incite Treason in Iran

Despite the Founding Fathers’ admonition to enter “entangling alliances” with no foreign nations, “the U.S. has strangled itself in a cat’s cradle of entangling alliances,” says Kevin Barrett. As a result, the nation is mired in a series of wars for the benefit of one of those allied nations—Israel, which continues to pressure the U.S. to expand our wars into Iran. Given how quickly and how often those who took an oath to defend the Constitution instead defend an entangling alliance, the question is: “When will the traitors at home stop inciting treason abroad?”

By Kevin Barrett

Thomas Jefferson’s foreign policy doctrine—restating the key line from George Washington’s farewell speech—was simple and sensible: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.” The Founding Fathers’ credo held sway until World War II. Since then, the U.S. has strangled itself in a cat’s cradle of entangling alliances. Worse, it has allowed one of those alliances, the unofficial one with Israel, to drag it into a series of disastrous Middle Eastern wars.Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The American agents of Israel who helped orchestrate 9/11 are guilty of treason, which is defined in the Constitution as “levying war against the United States.” They blew up the World Trade Center and bombed the Pentagon in order to trick the U.S. into attacking Israel’s regional enemies: the “seven countries in five years” mentioned by Gen. Wesley Clark, who has cited a neocon memo suggesting that the purpose of 9/11 was “to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

In order to “take out” those countries the neocon-run post-9/11 United States has had to work closely with the relatively small number of Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Libyans, Somalis, Sudanese, and Iranians who are willing to commit treason against their own nations. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan have been effectively destroyed by American agents of Israel and their bought-and-paid-for local traitors. Lebanon and Iran are next in their gunsights.

But Tehran is putting up a stiff fight. Since 1979 Iran has managed to persist as the Middle East’s only fully independent country, only genuine democracy, and most formidable opponent of Israel.

Brainwashed for War, Prorammed to Kill – Matthias Chang
Brainwashed for War, Programmed to Kill – On Sale Now at AFP Online Store

Israel, which has ethnically cleansed the majority of its rightful voters, is neither a democracy nor a legitimate nation. Though its creation was recommended by the UN General Assembly, it was never implemented by the Security Council. Israel has violated dozens of UN resolutions thereby eliminating any possible claim to legitimacy.

More than three times the size of Iraq, Iran boasts a population of 80 million. When under attack, Iranians will unite and put their lives on the line for their country, as they proved during the 1980s war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Currently Iran boasts many strategic advantages including thousands of the latest and most lethal anti-ship missiles, which are dug deeply into the mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. Using those missiles, Iran can sink all U.S. ships in the Gulf and shut down 20% of the world’s oil supply, inducing a catastrophic global depression.

A December 2004 Atlantic article reported on a series of war games simulating a U.S.-Iran conflict. The result was simple: “You have no military solution for the issues of Iran,” according to lead participant Sam Gardiner.

Yet pro-Israel traitors in the U.S. government continue plotting to destroy Iran. According to neoliberal Zionist Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, the U.S. has given Israel the green light to launch another huge war on Lebanon, with the aim of expanding the war to Iran.

This “U.S. green light,” of course, was actually given not by actual patriotic Americans but by Israel’s neocon agents.

Meanwhile the mainstream American media, also dominated by Zionists, relentlessly tries to stir up sedition in Iran. The minuscule minority of Iranians who are actively opposed to their nation’s Islamic republican constitution are given grotesquely disproportionate, fawningly favorable coverage, while ordinary Iranians, who protest over economic issues and corruption but would die to defend their nation and its constitution, are ignored.

Iraqi traitors like the swindler Ahmed Chalabi helped the neocons murder more than a million of his countrymen and destroy his country as a modern, technologically advanced society. Somali traitors cooperated with the U.S.-Israeli-orchestrated Ethiopian invasion, occupation, and destruction of that nation. Sudanese traitors helped the neocons orchestrate the vivisection of their country, including the amputation of the resource-rich south, which is now occupied by Israel and its friends. Libyan traitors helped Hillary Clinton and her Zionist controllers destroy that country, which formerly featured the highest living standards in Africa. Syrian traitors assisted in the destruction of that nation by an Israel-orchestrated, U.S.-assisted ISIS rampage.

Are there enough traitors in Iran to force “regime change”? No chance. They all fled with the Shah in 1979 and are now living side-by-side with their Zionist friends in the rich neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Some of them dream of returning to help overthrow the Islamic Republic. But the Iranian people will have none of it. The 2009 “Green Revolution” fizzled, as did recent CIA-Mossad attempts to hijack legitimate demonstrations and turn them into riots.

When will the traitors at home stop inciting treason abroad? When we arrest, try, and sentence them for their crimes, starting with 9/11.

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.

Protect Kids or Confiscate Guns?

Pat Buchanan points out what many are asking: How did “the system,” for which we taxpayers pay such a high price, fail so utterly in preventing Nikolas Cruz from slaughtering 17 people at the high school from which he had been expelled? But is Cruz “evil”? Should he be quickly put to death, as Buchanan suggests, which would mean Florida taxpayers would not have to foot the bill to house Cruz for as long as he lives? Tell us what you think in the comments below.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In days gone by, a massacre of students like the atrocity at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School would have brought us together. But like so many atrocities before it, this mass murder is tearing us apart.

The perpetrator, the sick and evil 19-year-old who killed 17 innocents with a gun, is said to be contrite.

Having confessed, he faces life in prison. For the next half-century, Nikolas Cruz will be fed, clothed, sheltered, and medicated at the expense of Florida taxpayers, including the families of those he murdered.

Cruz’s punishment seems neither commensurate with his crimes nor a deterrent for sick and evil minds contemplating another Columbine.

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

It didn’t use to be this way.

On Feb 15, 1933, anarchist Giuseppe Zangara tried to assassinate President-elect Franklin Roosevelt in Miami. His arm jostled, he killed instead Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak. Five weeks later, on March 20, 1933, Zangara died in the electric chair.

Swift, sure and pitiless, but that legal justice system worked.

With Cruz, the system failed up and down the line.

Cruz should never have been allowed to purchase or possess a gun. He was angry, alienated, isolated. Police had been to his family home to deal with complaints 39 times.

Yet he had no arrest record when he purchased his AR-15.

Classmates at Douglas High had speculated that if there ever were a school shooting, Cruz would be the one to do it. The FBI was alerted a month before that Nikolas Cruz was a time bomb ready to explode.

The NRA was not responsible for the system-wide failure from Douglas High to the FBI. As the NRA’s Dana Loesch told CPAC Thursday:

“The government can’t keep you safe and some people want us to give up our firearms and rely solely upon the protection of the same government that’s already failed numerous times to keep us safe.”

As for the AR-15, it is the most popular rifle sold. Five million to 8 million are in circulation. Veterans since Vietnam have trained with, and many fought with, the M16, which is first cousin to the AR-15. Veterans are among the millions who own them.

While all agree AR-15s should be kept out of the hands of crazies like Cruz, the establishment insists that it is the gun that is the problem.

We hear demands that AR-15s be banned and confiscated.

Proponents should put that proposition to a vote. But a prediction: The moment it is brought up for a vote, sales of AR-15s will explode, as they have before. If the weapon is banned, as alcohol was banned in Prohibition, millions of law-abiding Americans will become law-breakers.

And who will barge into America’s homes to seize and collect the rifles?

Moreover, if people have decided to mass murder classmates or co-workers, inviting “suicide by cop,” are they going to be stopped from acquiring a semiautomatic by a congressional law?

Have our drug laws halted drug use?

Many of the guns confiscated by police are in the possession of thugs, criminals, and ex-cons who have no legal right to own them. Yet, if we are going to prosecute the illegal sale or transfer of weapons severely, we will have hundreds of thousands more in prisons, at a time when we are instructed to empty them of nonviolent offenders.

As for mental illness, it seems more prevalent than it used to be, and the numbers of those on medication seems a greater share of the population.

Do doctors decide which of their patients are fit to own a gun, and which are not? Should doctors be held criminally liable if they fail to alert police and one of their patients uses a gun in a violent crime?

Who will maintain the federal registry of the mentally sick unfit to own a firearm?

The anger and anguish of those who lost family or friends in this atrocity is understandable. But passion is not a substitute for thought.

There are twice as many guns in America as there were just decades ago. And a primary reason people acquire them is because they believe they need them to protect themselves and their families, and they no longer trust the government to protect them.

They view the demand for banning and confiscating specific weapons as a first step down the inexorable road that ends in the disarmament of the people.

Most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, where crazed men of murderous intent know their chances of maximizing the dead and wounded are far better than in attacking a police station.

Our embassies are defended by Marines with M16s. Security guards with guns defend banks and military bases, presidents, and politicians.

The best way to protect kids in schools may be to protect schools, and run down and incarcerate the known criminals and crazies who are the primary threats.

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 Online Store


More Gun Violence: Let’s Look Beyond Politics

When it comes to discussion of the tragic shooting deaths of 17 people at a high school in South Florida, Ron Paul says we need to set aside politics and agendas and take a hard look at the real issues, including the effects of psychotropic medications and why law enforcement, particularly the FBI, clearly dropped the ball in preventing this atrocity. 

By Ron Paul

Another terrible school shooting took place in Parkland, Florida last week and unfortunately many politicians and pundits have used the tragedy—as they often do—to push their own agenda. Many will use the tragedy to argue that Americans should be prohibited from owning guns. As if anti-gun laws would dissuade a disturbed or violent individual intent on causing harm. Those intent on mass murder don’t obey gun laws.

It’s unfortunate that while many are quick to demand that guns be taken away from peaceful Americans, they don’t seem to have much to say about guns when they’re in the hands of government authorities shooting innocent people. If we need any gun control, it is to get control of the guns in the hands of thousands of government employees who use them against innocent people with impunity.

For example, why do those calling for more gun control remain silent when armed federal agents raid Amish farms to stop them from selling raw milk? This shows the hypocrisy of those who call for restrictions on private firearms ownership while supporting the use of government violence as a means of controlling our lives.

Screening Sandy Hook, by Deanna Spingola
Medications and shootings … connection? See the AFP Online Store for more.

Unfortunately, there are many key questions lost in the race to score political points from the shooting.

Why does it always seem that the shooter in these mass killings has been on some kind of psychotropic drugs? As the New American magazine pointed out this week, at least ten high-profile mass shootings have been committed by individuals who “were either on—or just recently coming off of—psychiatric medications.” The young killer in Florida was no different. According to his aunt, he had been on these medications to treat mental problems.

Why is no one questioning these medications—all of which come with labels warning of horrific side effects? Perhaps one reason they are ignored is that the pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars lobbying Congress.

Also, how is it possible that the FBI once again missed so many obvious clues that a violent person intent on causing massive harm to others was about to strike? Is the FBI actually this incompetent, or perhaps its focus was in other areas—like meddling in our own elections by presenting “evidence” they knew was flawed to the FISA court to get permission to spy on the Trump campaign?

We’ve heard many stories of how alert FBI field agents tried to alert their bosses before 9/11 that foreigners were taking flight lessons but were not interested in learning how to land the planes.

Is giving the federal government more power to spy on us—as they demand—the answer to stop these terrible crimes? Hardly!

Those who think that giving federal authorities greater surveillance powers might prevent mass shootings should consider that the FBI has been alerted that the latest school shooter had made Facebook posts and YouTube comments talking about his intention to be, as he put it, “a professional school shooter.” But the Bureau failed to properly investigate the tips. If the FBI fails to stop someone who openly boasts about their intentions on social media why should we believe that giving them the power to snoop on every American would increase our safety?

We cannot stop tragedies like this by banning guns. We need to look seriously into the psychotropic drugs that more and more Americans are being prescribed. We need to demand that our elected Representatives demand a real day of reckoning at the FBI. We need to keep focused and ignore those who politicize such events.

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