Israeli Interests Come Before Recovery

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

By Dave Gahary

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

AFP Podcast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Trump Will Release JFK Documents

The CIA and FBI are worried about President Trump’s release of thousands of JFK assassination files. Apparently, 54 years has not allowed them enough time to review the documents, so they’ve asked him for another six-month delay. The new deadline for the withheld documents is April 26, 2018. S.T. Patrick spoke with Joseph Green of the Hidden History Center to discuss the new documents released; podcast link below.

By S.T. Patrick

Though President Donald Trump has acquiesced to the CIA and FBI that requested another 180 days to reevaluate their reasons for redactions, the president did not block the release of over 2,800 John F. Kennedy assassination documents to the public. The releases coincided with the Oct. 26 date that had been set by the JFK Records Act of 1992—25 years to the day after the act was passed by Congress.

In July, the National Archives began releasing the first batch of documents. The releases came earlier than researchers had been expecting and included 441 CIA and FBI documents that had been completely withheld and 3,369 previously released documents that had been redacted to varying degrees.

The first significant revelation from the July records release concerned Earle Cabell, who was the mayor of Dallas in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated. Documents revealed that Cabell had been a CIA asset since 1956. His brother, Charles Cabell, had been deputy director of the CIA until Kennedy forced him to resign in the CIA shake-up that emanated from the Bay of Pigs fallout.

AFP Podcast

Another newly released record describes a phone call made 25 minutes before the assassination.  The anonymous call to the British Cambridge News warned a reporter that some “big news” was coming. The caller then suggested that the reporter call the American embassy for details. After the assassination, the reporter informed the Cambridge police, who then relayed the information to MI5, the UK’s domestic counter-intelligence and security agency.

Dr. John Newman, author of JFK & Vietnam and Oswald and the CIA, and Jefferson Morley of “JFKfacts.org” have been mining the 2017 releases for information on what and when the CIA knew about alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Morley, the author of The Ghost: The Secret Life of Spymaster James Jesus Angleton, has been using the documents to argue that the CIA controlled, rather than botched, the Warren Commission’s investigation of Oswald.

“The CIA made at least four false statements to investigators,” Morley wrote. “The effect of these statements was to conceal what top CIA officers, including Angleton, knew of Oswald while JFK was still alive.”

The new documents appear to quell many arguments that the KGB was actively involved in both Oswald’s preparation and the assassination itself. However, new questions have been raised about Cuban involvement. Theorists who have claimed involvement from Fidel Castro point to CIA attempts to assassinate Castro as motive. JFK assassination researchers such as Joseph Green of the Hidden History Center disagree in light of Castro’s own comments.

“If you’ve ever read what Castro said on Nov. 23, 1963, it’s an amazing speech,” Green said. “Castro had it figured out immediately. He said, ‘They’re going to blame it on us.’ Castro knew he was losing an ally. Lyndon Johnson’s foreign policy with respect to Cuba was not going to be the same as Kennedy’s. But he also saw that he was being set up.”

Green also believes the withheld documents are equally telling, as they weave a narrative about who is being protected.

“Are we covering up all of this because we are trying to protect the fact that the KGB sent (Oswald)?” Green asked. “Would the CIA be concerned about documents implicating Castro? No. There’s only one reason for the government to be upset and delaying after 54 years the release of documents that should be completely harmless documents.”

On Oct. 21, Trump tweeted that he would be “allowing, as president, the long blocked and classified JFK files to be opened.” Critics condemned the semantics of the tweet, stating that the president does not “allow” the release of the documents. The 1992 law mandates their release. He can, however, choose to block specific releases if he can show, according to the JFK Records Act, that a release would signify an “identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations . . . and that the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was set up by the act to serve as an independent agency that would consider arguments and then render decisions when the release of a record was challenged by a government agency. In its final report, the ARRB cited the Oliver Stone film “JFK” as a catalyst for the passage of the JFK Records Act. Since 1992, the ARRB has declassified over 5 million documents.

The general public still awaits a “smoking gun” document that the vast majority of researchers know will never come. The documents that have already been released add colors and dimensions to a basic construct that was established by first-generation researchers that questioned the Warren Commission immediately after its volumes were released in 1964.

A deadline for those documents withheld for further review has been set for April 26, 2018.

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




That Bloodbath in the Old Dominion

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

By Patrick J. Buchanan

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

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

Contrast Nixon’s numbers with President Trump’s.

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

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

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

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

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

As there are two Americas, there are two Virginias.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there was the Republican messenger.

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

Ed Gillespie was Virginia’s version of Jeb Bush.

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

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

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

During the campaign, both candidates moved rightward.

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

The lesson for 2018:

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

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

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

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

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

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

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



GOP Tax Plan Increases the Most Insidious Tax

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

By Ron Paul

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

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

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

IRS Loses Cases

 

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

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

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

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

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




Globalists Seek to Scuttle Brexit

The New World Order elite just won’t let the British put Britain first. 

By Mark Anderson

The British “Brexit” vote, cast June 23, 2016, provided a clear indication of the populist revolt that’s been simmering for several years. But as the European Union (EU) tightens its despotic grip even more on the economic and political destinies of Europe’s peoples, the British exit from the EU could get delayed or even scuttled.

Brexit refers to the national referendum that passed in the United Kingdom (UK) that calls on the country to leave the EU.

A key factor is that the Bilderberg-nurtured EU superstate, which had 28 members at the time of the Brexit vote, is completing long-planned fiscal and banking unions to centralize its powers. Bilderberg is the shadowy group of global elites who gather every year behind locked and guarded doors in five-star resorts to discuss, debate, and ultimately influence the most pressing issues of the day.

European Council President Donald Tusk—whose cooperation is indispensable if British voters ever want a real chance at getting out of the EU—recently addressed European Parliament members about a recent EU summit, telling the MEPs: “It is in fact up to London how this will end, with a good deal, no deal, or no Brexit.”

As quoted by the UK’s Guardian newspaper, Tusk rather cryptically added: “We have managed to build and maintain unity . . . but ahead of us is still the toughest stress test. If we fail it, the [Brexit] negotiations will end in our defeat,” speaking in a manner that suggested a sense of rivalry with Britain’s wishes as expressed by Brexit. “We must keep our unity regardless of the direction of the talks.”

On a somewhat more upbeat note, European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker did say: “Those who don’t want a deal, the no-dealers, they do not have friends in the commission. We want a . . . fair deal with Britain. The no-deal is not our working assumption.”

However, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier told a European newspaper group that the EU wants a deal “but could not exclude the no-deal option.” And other voices see a darker tinge to these developments, suggesting that Brexit could very well be imperiled.

David Ellis, an analyst with Strategic Defence Initiatives, said on the Oct. 24 edition of UK “Column News” online that, due to the EU’s intent to issue a European Monetary Fund plan by June 2018, it appears the EU’s pending banking and fiscal unifications will result in “a single-point control of all money.” That includes doing away with allowing EU member nations to control their internal budgets.

This, he said, will bring with it the EU’s military unification—into which the British armed forces are heavily involved as they’re downsized to where they’re not sufficient for effective national defense, but the right size to be a contributing force to an EU military union. This could effectively keep the UK in the EU.

“Brexit,” Ellis said, “has just been an umbrella” to bring about “a tyranny like we’ve never seen on the continent.” And when the Guardian quotes Tusk as simply saying that he may slow or halt Brexit, that establishment paper “is missing the point,” Ellis continued.

In a separate online column, Ellis, mirroring conversations he has had with this AFP writer, wrote: “The issue of the European Union desperately requiring control of the military and budgets of EU member states is moving very fast now . . . . We feel strongly that it is not being voiced with the correct level of importance as the UK (apparently) prepares for Brexit.”

IRS Loses Cases

He added, “There will be no Brexit unless Britain extricates itself as a matter of urgency from the amalgamation of EU militaries, which will inevitably prompt an EU treasury taking over the member states’ budgets.”

Ellis continued, “In [the UK] Parliament, no party is even mentioning EU military union, popularly but inaccurately referred to as ‘an EU army.’ ”

This military arrangement, he added, “does not replace but rather subsumes the nation states’ militaries and military budgets. In other words, the nominal armies, navies, and air forces of the EU member states . . . will remain in place, but sapped of their ability to operate or purchase independently of EU command.”

In the U.S., speaking to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Oct. 2, Sir Alan Duncan, Britain’s minister of state for Europe and the Americas, sounded the alarm for fellow elites about the populist revolt as expressed through Brexit. However, he shrugged off Brexit’s significance while expounding on his “global Britain” speech topic—suggesting that the British state’s status and operations will largely remain the same as they have been under the EU: free trade, open borders, and so on.

“Brexit was only about Brits expressing how they want their country to work, not to step back from its role in the world,” Duncan opined, while also claiming, “The importance of the UK’s global role was one place where the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ [voters wanting to leave or remain in EU] converged.”

So, besides speaking as if he can somehow assess the attitudes of all voters in greater Britain about the UK’s global role, he’s saying that the Brexit vote, no matter what the ultimate outcome, may not be allowed to change UK policies enough to matter.

“No one in the UK believes that it makes sense to turn inwards.” Duncan presumptuously added. He stressed the melodramatic mantra that even the slightest retreat from worldwide Western hegemony is an intolerable slap in the face to the post-World War II “rules-based international order,” formed in 1944 at Bretton Woods, N.H., at a conference that spawned the World Bank, IMF, and today’s world-trade infrastructure.

The Bretton Woods agreement is the world elite’s modern-era touchstone, largely serving the super-rich while having formed the bedrock of modern transnationalist empires like the EU, the U.S. etc.

Duncan made it clear that while “leaving the EU” may be the wish of a majority of UK voters, at the end of the day, the “global values” undergirding that “rulesbased order” help cement a marriage whose vows are not easily dissolved.

“We’re leaving the EU,” he claimed, “but we [the UK and EU] . . . believe deeply in the same values—peace, democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.”

Further suggesting Brexit is being deflated, he announced that the EU and UK have rolled out “our Future Partnership Paper on foreign policy, defense, security, and development”—an ambitious “new framework for future security, law enforcement, and criminal justice cooperation between the EU and the UK.”

Duncan labeled Russia as “more aggressive, more authoritarian, and more nationalist” than the world community cares to tolerate—as if internationalism cannot possibly be authoritarian or aggressive.

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




Democrats Behind Fake News Dossier

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC have been tied to the bogus report on Trump’s “deep, compromising ties to Russia,” which even former FBI Director James Comey called “salacious and unverified,” that was released before the presidential election and is still being trumpeted by the corporate press and Republicans like Sen. John McCain as “evidence” the president has been influenced—or even blackmailed—by the Russian government. On the contrary, claims President Trump, “This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election.”

By John Friend

Throughout the 2016 presidential election, and even following Donald Trump’s electoral victory, Democrat strategists, Hillary Clinton and her top aides and supporters, and much of the corporate-owned mass media have attempted to discredit and marginalize Trump by alleging he has ties to and has been influenced by the Russian government.

Purported “Russian meddling” in the 2016 election has been a major talking point for Democrats, who have relentlessly attempted to tie Trump and his closest associates—including his son, Donald Trump Jr.—to the Russian government. Democrat partisans and anti-Trump members of the GOP, such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other Republican leaders, continue to peddle the largely discredited theory that Russia “interfered” in the heated 2016 election in order to help Trump triumph in the heated presidential election.

Now it has been revealed that the Clinton campaign, working in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), funded research that ultimately resulted in the much ballyhooed “Russian dossier,” which was leaked to the mass media and has been used to promote the largely discredited notion that Trump has deep, compromising ties to Russia, and that the Russians interfered in the election.

Early last week, The Washington Post published a detailed report alleging that Marc E. Elias, a top lawyer for the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained and financed a Washington-based company called Fusion GPS to conduct the research and amass the dossier. Elias used his law firm, Perkins Coie, to retain Fusion GPS and to pay for its research activities.

Elias and DNC officials all have lied, claiming that they did not know who paid for the dossier.

The funders were only discovered thanks to a lawsuit brought by a technology mogul who was smeared in the document. The billionaire had sued Fusion GPS along with a mainstream media outlet that posted the entire document to its website for everyone to read. In his suit, he gained access to Fusion GPS’s bank accounts and discovered who had paid for the research.

Prior to the Clinton campaign and DNC contracting Fusion GPS to conduct the research, The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, contracted Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on then-candidate Trump and many of the other top GOP contenders at the time. Elias, working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, eventually contracted Fusion GPS to engage in similar research, which was used to buttress Democrat talking points designed to discredit Trump by portraying him as a Russian puppet who was potentially being blackmailed by the Kremlin.IRS Loses Cases

ENTER THE BRITISH SPY

Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence official who has close ties to both the FBI and the broader U.S. intelligence community, to put together the dossier, which alleges, among other things, that Russia has been “cultivating, supporting, and assisting Trump for at least five years,” The Hill reports. The dossier, entitled, “U.S. presidential election: Republican candidate Donald Trump’s activities in Russia and compromising relationship with the Kremlin,” also alleges that Trump and his top aides “accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin” about Mrs. Clinton.

In the dossier, Steele further contends that Trump has deep financial ties to Russia.

Additionally, a number of lewd allegations were made about Trump in the dossier, allegations which have been met with skepticism and doubt. Trump has denied all of the charges contained in the dossier, calling it a “fake dossier” that was “made up” by disingenuous and dishonest individuals seeking to tarnish his image and reputation in the minds of the American public.

Trump has regularly attacked and criticized allegations of “Russian meddling” in the election, and has denied having close, compromising ties to Russia, describing the allegations as a “hoax.”

“I have to say, the whole Russian thing is what it’s turned out to be,” Trump explained to reporters following reports demonstrating the “Russia dossier” report was financed and compiled largely at the behest of the Clinton campaign and DNC. “This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election.”

The dossier is a collection of 17 memos authored by Steele between June 20 and Dec. 13, 2016. In the memos, Steele cites conversations he had with unnamed Russian sources, many of whom he paid for their “information.”

Former FBI Director James Comey briefed Trump and former President Barack Obama on the dossier prior to the election. Comey described it as “salacious and unverified” in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Many of the claims made in the dossier have been debunked, and many others have not been verified and likely never will be.

Several DNC leaders and many former Clinton campaign officials have denied involvement or knowledge about the “Russian dossier” and Fusion GPS’s role in compiling it.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez and top DNC leaders “were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization,” a DNC spokeswoman recently told The Washington Post.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.




Cleaning House

The rising tide of populism and America-first sentiments are finally gaining ground in U.S. politics, and as a result “America-last” senators and congressmen are being forced out of office. Recently, at least two have announced they will not run for re-election, citing the poor chances of winning against candidates whose policies more closely mirror the desires of America’s voters. 

By John Friend

A number of Republican senators and congressmen who have publicly criticized President Donald Trump’s agenda recently announced they will not be seeking re-election during the next election cycle, signaling yet another triumph of Trump’s America-first populism, which has divided the GOP between Trump-supporting Republicans and establishment-serving, internationalist Republicans increasingly out of touch with conservative and right-wing voters.

Jeff Flake, Arizona’s junior Republican senator who frequently criticizes Trump, is facing a tough primary challenge from Kelli Ward, a populist, America-first former state senator who has the backing of Trump and former campaign advisor Steven Bannon. Flake recently announced he would not seek re-election due to the fact his failed “conservatism” is no longer popular or viable among traditional GOP voters.

“It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, who is pro-immigration has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican Party,” Flake stated during a speech on the Senate floor announcing his decision to not seek re-election. Flake’s faux conservatism, which is quickly being discredited by Trump’s America-first populism and nationalist rhetoric, is simply out of touch with rank-and-file GOP voters, who have been craving the sort of bold, uncompromising leadership Trump and his movement offer and represent.

“If I could run the kind of race I’d like to run and believe[d] I could win a Republican primary, I might go forward,” Flake later told reporters, underscoring the reality of just how disconnected Flake and other establishment GOP political leaders are.

Trump has harshly attacked his GOP critics since becoming president, including Flake. In August, Trump expressed joy that Ms. Ward would be running against Flake, accurately describing the Arizona senator as weak on borders and crime.

Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, yet another GOP political leader who has publicly sparred with Trump, also recently announced he would not be seeking reelection in 2018.

“After much thought, consideration and family discussion over the past year, [wife] Elizabeth and I have decided that I will leave the United States Senate when my term expires at the end of 2018,” Corker declared in a statement announcing his decision.

Corker has repeatedly criticized Trump, perhaps most notably in the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., a legally organized and sanctioned rally that was sabotaged by local and state law enforcement and political leaders with left-wing political affiliations.

These political developments potentially represent a stark departure from the failed faux conservatism championed by establishment Republicans, who for far too long have been driven by a globalist, neoconservative, America-last political perspective that is being exposed for the fraud it is by Trump and other America-first populists.

John McCain, the senior senator from Arizona who is a close ally of Flake, demonstrated just how contrary his increasingly unpopular and out-of-touch brand of conservatism is during a recent speech attacking Trump and his positions.

“We have to fight isolationism, protectionism, and nativism,” McCain stated. “We have to defeat those who would worsen our divisions.” He later went on to attack the notion that America could put her political and economic interests first, which more and more Americans are becoming increasingly tired of hearing.

This newspaper, and millions of Americans across the nation, welcome the rise of an America-first, populist political movement, which has been championed so well by Trump thus far.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.




Rhode Island Tackles ‘Geoengineering’

No longer dismissed as “conspiracy theory nonsense,” Rhode Island’s general assembly is concerned enough that geoengineering, or “intentional manipulation of the environment,” involves “hazardous activities that can harm human health and safety, the environment, and the economy . . .” that they passed a bill to regulate all geoengineering activities.  

By Mark Anderson

In late September, Rhode Island became the first state to enact legislation that calls on officials to examine how atmospheric-modification programs, commonly referred to as “geoengineering,” are affecting the Earth. The measure in question is the Geoengineering Act of 2017 (H. 6011), which was introduced by state Rep. Justin Price (R) earlier this year.

“The Rhode Island general assembly finds that geoengineering encompasses many technologies and methods involving hazardous activities that can harm human health and safety, the environment, and the economy of the state of Rhode Island. . .. It is therefore the intention of the Rhode Island general assembly to regulate all geoengineering activities,” the bill says.

Specifically, the bill would “provide that a person seeking to engage in geoengineering activities would require a license from the director of the Department of Environmental Management,” an April 2017 legislative news release explained, adding: “Geoengineering is defined as the intentional manipulation of the environment, involving nuclear, biological, chemical, electromagnetic and/or other physical-agent activities that effect changes to earth’s atmosphere and/or surface.”

Cloud-seeding has long existed as a form of weather modification. One example is the U.S. military’s clandestine Operation Popeye, which illegally applied a “cold cloud modification system” using three WC-130 planes to shoot silver-iodide flares into the skies to induce heavy rains to muddy the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The purpose was to stop or slow North Vietnamese troop convoys.

IRS Loses Cases

But there’s a growing recognition that much else is going on above us—and has been for a long time. Many people call those criss-cross vapor streaks that often mar otherwise beautiful blue skies “chemtrails,” a broad term referring to visual evidence of an apparent program involving atmospheric spraying that allegedly goes beyond creating rainfall.

Perhaps the most common claim is that atmospheric aerosols are being sprayed to deflect sunlight and keep the Earth from getting too warm, in keeping with the climate change theory that world temperatures are unnaturally rising, and humanity’s industrial emissions are chiefly to blame.

Specialists interviewed by this AFP writer regarding geoengineering have some weighty concerns, especially regarding the bill’s “regulation” provision.

“There are concerted efforts in America and in Europe,” nuclear physicist and atmospheric researcher J. Marvin Herndon told AFP, “that are aimed at geoengineering ‘governance.’ All of those efforts, to my knowledge, fail to tell the full truth, fail to admit that geoengineering has been taking place covertly for decades.” He continued, “The more I learn of the horrific adverse health consequences for humans and other biota, the more I realize that there is only one acceptable act of governance: The total and complete ban on placing any and all substances into the air we breathe for any reason.”

Herndon did add, “Representative Justin Price deserves major kudos for not burying his head in the sand as most (virtually all) civic leaders do.”

Price’s bill requires advance disclosure of precise geoengineering plans before they’re carried out. Otherwise, geoengineering should be banned, said Price, who told reporters: “I think the public should not take the idea of geoengineering lightly, because we have no idea what irreversible damage could be done to the planet or our atmosphere . . .. Either the entire process is completely transparent to the public, with strict oversight, or I say, it absolutely should not happen.”

This bill, introduced on March 24 and passed by the House Sept. 19 by a 67-0 vote, would “create a five-member commission to study and provide recommendations on the regulation and licensure of geoengineering.”

Yet this issue runs even deeper than many may suspect. Jim Lee of South Carolina, a researcher on geoengineering, especially weather modification, spoke at length on such matters at last December’s Freedom Force International conference entitled “Global Warming: An Inconvenient Lie” in Phoenix, Ariz.

Lee credits Price for waking people up about geoengineering, but there already are broader laws on this subject that have long been on the books—such as the federal Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1976—that should be utilized to bring clandestine atmospheric modification into full public view and establish a means of policing, punishing or banning it.

The Rhode Island bill’s text says that violators would be punished $500,000 per occurrence with “not less than 190 days” in jail, and per occurrence could mean per day.

“With the Rhode Island bill, there’s no way to punish anybody,” Lee countered. “It doesn’t say anything about how you catch somebody [engaging in geoengineering flights] without a license. The 24-hour prior notice in the bill is okay, but we have to deploy atmospheric sensors to catch violators in the act.”

As he understands it, most atmospheric modification programs are “deep-state” and by definition would be hard to thwart under the Rhode Island bill—given the limited jurisdiction and land area of that small eastern state.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. You can email Mark directly at truthhound2@yahoo.com.




Homelessness, Infectious Diseases Combine to Create Health Disaster

In an example of America’s rapidly eroding status as a First World nation, an outbreak of hepatitis A—serious enough to lead California’s governor to declare a state of emergency—has hit the homeless populations around both San Diego and Detroit, sickening at least 1,000 people. The general lack of cleanliness that leads to such disease outbreaks is an example of the powers-that-be failing to address problems impacting the rest of us “deplorables,” says one public health physician. 

By Dave Gahary

The breakdown of the United States is manifested in many ways, but perhaps no way illustrates the decline of this once-great nation more than its swelling homeless population, and, with it, diseases that were once seen only in Third World countries. The numbers back up what many of us suspect: According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s November 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, “on a single night in 2016, 549,928 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States.”

AFP Podcast

Indicative of the disaster, two separate outbreaks of hepatitis A in California and Michigan that began last year and have killed dozens of people are threatening to spread across the country, and public health officials have very few tools in their arsenal to stop the wave of contagion.

On Oct. 13, California Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency, which will allow state health officials to buy additional doses of the hepatitis A vaccine to try to halt the outbreak, the country’s second largest in more than 20 years. The only one larger occurred in Pennsylvania in 2003, when almost 1,000 people caught hepatitis A from contaminated green onions.

The outbreak, which began in San Diego’s homeless community last year, has now spread into other regions. Los Angeles and Santa Cruz counties are now experiencing outbreaks. It has gotten so bad in San Diego that contractors have started blasting the city’s downtown streets with bleach.

Hepatitis A “is a viral infection that involves the liver and makes people sick for maybe a month or so,” Dr. Jane Orient, the chairman of the Pima County, Ariz. Medical Society’s Public Health Committee for about 30 years and the president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, told American Free Press in an exclusive interview.

“They become jaundiced, and they may have nausea and vomiting,” Dr. Orient continued. “It is generally a self-limited disease, although it is contagious, and people generally get over it and do fine and are immune to it afterwards. It is generally transmitted in contaminated food; it’s a fecal-oral route that is excreted in the stool, and if you contaminate the food with it then that’s how it’s usually transmitted—although the San Diego outbreak does not appear to involve food handlers, but rather people are getting it from the environment, because, I guess, in San Diego they have a particularly filthy environment.”

AFP asked Dr. Orient why a First World nation like the United States has seen 19 people die from the disease in the San Diego area and 14 people die so far in the Detroit area, with over 1,000 infected in both regions.

“I think that we’re just seeing a breakdown in our civilization,” she said, “which includes standards of cleanliness that have been accepted for decades at least and maybe for centuries. Why are we going back to the time when they denied the germ theory of disease?”

The germ theory of disease, Dr. Orient explained, “means that disease is transmitted by microscopic organisms that you can acquire by drinking dirty water or contamination of your food, that these are bacteria or viruses that grow and multiply in your body and that make you sick. This is the most important reason why Third World countries have such high rates of diseases: They do not have clean water and sanitation.”

AFP asked why she thinks the germ theory of disease is not being addressed by those in power.

“I think it’s a matter of political correctness that would involve critiquing things like allowing people to wander through the streets and live in a way that endangers the health of the whole population,” she explained. “It seems that there are people that care more about political correctness than they do about the health of the average American citizen. I think they consider themselves to be sort of immune: They’re protected, they live in an elite community, and they’re in charge of things. They’re not like the rest of us ‘deplorables,’ who are barely getting by on what we can earn in this de-industrializing society, and I think they just really don’t care about the average patient.”

IRS Loses Cases

AFP asked if she believes that unfettered immigration is contributing to this and other outbreaks.

“Oh, I think it definitely is,” she answered. “We have people coming into the country that are not screened medically in any way, and sometimes are deliberately dispersed throughout the country, and go to public schools and infect children with diseases to which the children have never been exposed before and they have no immunity.”

She continued: “That was probably responsible for outbreaks of hundreds of cases of the Enterovirus D68 (EV68) that sent a lot of American children to intensive care units. Some of them became paralyzed because it is a disease somewhat like polio to some people. This probably came in from Central America where it’s endemic in the population. It doesn’t usually make people [who live there] very sick because they have some immunity to it, but American children just don’t.”

As several California counties are offering free hepatitis A vaccine shots to the homeless in order to stem the tide of the outbreak, AFP asked Dr. Orient her opinion on the vaccinations, which are being almost forced on the homeless.

“I just think that mass imposition of any type of medical intervention is a very bad idea,” she said. “It’s contrary to our civil rights, and it’s also just a very imprudent idea, because a lot of times we don’t find out about the bad effects of the medical things we do until it’s too late.”

Dr. Orient warned further about vaccines.

“I think that people who deny that vaccines can have lifelong disabling, very serious complications is rampant,” she said. “Vaccine manufacturers have virtually absolute immunity for any type of liability, so they’re really quite protected, even if they lie and cover up or are negligent about doing safety studies.”

American Free Press asked if the elites had a more nefarious agenda.

“I think there are people who really want to destroy the United States of America—to destroy our economic and our military power—because we’re the biggest impediment to their ideal of a global regime,” she said. “I think the United States is in serious danger, existential hazard really, of loss of the freedom on which our prosperity depends, as well as a decent civilized life.”

Dr. Orient summarized her feelings on this disturbing issue.

“Large populations are using the streets and outdoor areas as a toilet,” she said. “There used to be punishment for merely spitting on the sidewalk. If we tolerate Third World hygiene standards we will have Third World diseases. We have got to break the chain of transmission by just cleanliness. We don’t have a vaccine for every disease that exists. We can’t vaccinate everybody for everything.”

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




Top-Tier Treason and the USS Liberty

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

By S.T. Patrick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Media Watchdog Group Catches Shocking NYT Admission on Tape

An undercover reporter with Project Veritas has exposed the official New York Times‘s anti-Trump policy in a new three-part video series. In addition, a NYT video editor revealed his own bias, conflicts of interest, and strange ties to Antifa and former FBI head James Comey.

By John Friend

Project Veritas, an independent non-profit media and watchdog organization founded by James O’Keefe that seeks to expose corruption and misconduct in both the public and private sphere, continues to reveal The New York Times and some of its leading contributors and editors as the partisan, biased, and unprofessional hacks the American public is coming to know them as.

As part of Project Veritas’s ongoing American Pravda series, which began in earnest this summer with a detailed exposure of CNN’s anti-Trump bias and blatant promotion of fake news stories, an undercover reporter with the media watchdog and investigative outfit captured a leading video editor for The New York Times on film exposing himself as an unprincipled, unethical, and dishonorable stooge for the anti-Trump establishment.

In the recently released video by Project Veritas, Nicholas Dudich, who serves as audience strategy editor for New York Times video, candidly admits that he and his so-called media organization are not objective in their coverage, particularly of Trump.

“No, I’m not [objective],” Dudich proudly concedes on video. “That’s why I’m here.”

Dudich also admitted that the Times slants its coverage of Trump in an effort to discredit and demonize the populist billionaire who has upset the ruling political and media establishment with his America-first positions and stinging attacks on what Trump accurately calls “the fake news” media that have manipulated and deceived the masses in this country for far too long. Prior to working for the Times, Dudich worked on the political campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, revealing his partisan nature.

In the video, Dudich also admitted to once being involved with Antifa, the radical and oftentimes violent coalition of far-left activists who regularly protest conservative and right-wing rallies and events. Antifa and its allies are also prone to physically attacking Trump supporters, and often attempt to shut down and disrupt conservative gatherings and events, publicly expose right-wing activists in an attempt to get them fired from their jobs, and otherwise cause mayhem and violence in cities across the United States.

“Yeah, I used to be an Antifa punk once upon a time,” Dudich explained to the undercover Project Veritas reporter. Dudich went on to bizarrely admit that James Comey, the former director of the FBI, asked him to join Antifa as a protected FBI asset to gather intelligence about the radical movement.

“I joined that stuff for them [the FBI],” Dudich told the undercover reporter. “I was an asset.”

Dudich’s purpose, he explained, was to gather information and to assess whether Antifa was a real threat to the government and society.

Dudich also told Project Veritas that Comey was his godfather, and that his father and mother have known Comey and his wife “for a really long time.” He admitted that he “should have recused [himself]” when covering the Comey trial, given his alleged close personal ties to Comey. However, Dudich’s father, who was contacted by Project Veritas, denied his son’s claims, stating that Comey is not Dudich’s godfather and that he doesn’t “even know James Comey.”

The bizarre and quite revealing investigative video series once again exposing a major American media outlet produced by Project Veritas has been released as a three-part series as AFP goes to press, and is well worth watching in its entirety. The video series can be viewed on YouTube or on AmericanFreePress.net, AFP’s website.

“The fact remains that Nick Dudich lies and he’s a gatekeeper at The New York Times,” O’Keefe stated following the release of the investigative report. “And that fact should be worrisome to the bosses at ‘the paper of record.’ Who else are they letting spread misinformation in their name?”

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.




Two Lost Thorn Books Back in Print!

Great news: After some negotiation, AFP has made a deal to bring back TWO Victor Thorn books that were in desperate need of a publisher. American Free Press is now the only authorized publisher and distributor—in print and electronic versions—of these two Thorn 9/11 blockbusters . . .

These two dangerous books are back In Print! 9/11 Evil and 911: Made in Israel are, together, “the most dangerous 9/11 books out there,” according to late author Victor Thorn (1962-2016), acknowledged as one of the world’s preeminent 9/11 scholars.

Special discount offer: Regularly priced at $15 each, you can get these books as a set for just $25. You save $5—that’s a 16% savings. Add just $5 S&H in the U.S. Add $25 S&H outside the U.S. Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free Mon.-Thu. 9-5 ET to charge or purchase online from the American Free Press bookstore, here.

9/11 EVIL: Israel’s Central Role in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack

This is the book that many influential 9/11 organizations and individuals don’t want you to read or talk about. This is the book the ADL doesn’t want you to read or talk about—they describe it as “preposterous,” simply because the evidence compiled points a finger at Israel as a major player in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America.

But facts are facts; we do not control where they lead. We already know why 9/11 was done, and we already know how the WTC towers were destroyed (via controlled demolitions). But for some reason, most everyone wants to shy away from WHO ultimately did 9/11. In the author’s opinion, the nation of Israel played a central role in the 9/11 terrorist attack on our country, and Thorn presents overwhelming evidence in the pages of 9/11 Evil.

This is the book the government, mainstream media gatekeepers, 9/11 Commission members, obfuscators, deceivers, and those who want to keep a lid on 9/11 don’t want you to read. This may be the most dangerous 9/11 book ever written. This is the book that has forever changed the way many people look at 9/11—and at the world around us today.

Softcover, 123 pages, $15 plus $5 S&H inside the U.S. (Add $25 S&H outside the U.S.)

Get this book here.  Get both books here.

9/11: MADE IN ISRAEL The Plot Against America

What this book makes clear is that a massive coverup exists not only in the mainstream media, but in the so-called 9/11 truth movement as well. It is true that 9/11 was an “inside” job, and criminal elements within the U.S. government were undoubtedly involved, as is so often stated by many authors and activists.

But 9/11 was much more. It was an “outside” job also, ultimately made in Israel, as a mountain of evidence compiled in this landmark book clearly shows. This book sets the record straight by focusing on the actual puppet masters. Jewish control of World Trade Center security and Jewish ownership of the WTC complex is only one piece of the 9/11 puzzle that Thorn meticulously pieces together. Only one nation and group of people benefited most from the attacks on 9/11: Israel and its Zionist allies.

As Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu boasted before an audience at Bar-Ilan University, “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon.” Considering the fact that the rogue state of Israel has a prior criminal record of perpetrating just such a crime—the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty—the verdict in this case is clear: 9/11 was made in Israel.

Softcover, 138 pages, $15 plus $5 S&H inside the U.S. (Add $25 S&H outside the U.S.)

Get this book here. Get both books here.

From the Author . . . “9/11 was an intricately planned act of state-sponsored terrorism concocted by a foreign government (Israel) in unison with an ardently loyal faction of neocon ‘crazies’ who had burrowed their way into the Pentagon, State Department, and White House. Assisting them were a host of defense contractors, computer gurus, and explosives experts who made the whole thing happen on the morning of September 11, 2001.”—VICTOR THORN

Victor Thorn was also the author of 9/11 on Trial: The World Trade Center Collapse, Phantom Flight 93 and Other Astounding 9/11 Mysteries Explored9/11 Exposed and countless more articles and booklets on the subject of 9/11 and the New World Order.

American Free Press
16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774

1-888-699-6397




Phil Giraldi Speaks Candidly With AFP

Former Army intelligence and CIA agent Philip Giraldi confirmed recently there is indeed a limit to free speech in America—even amongst “conservatives.” When it comes to criticizing neoconservatives’ Israel-first policy, repercussions are swift.

By Dave Gahary

George Orwell once said, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

That ominous warning was clearly on display last month when Philip Giraldi—one of the heavyweights who has been able to cross the line between the alternative media and the established media—was banned from writing for The American Conservative magazine, where he had been a contributor since its inception, because they didn’t like an article he wrote—not for them, but for another publication.

AFP Podcast

Giraldi, born in New Jersey and educated at the University of Chicago and the University of London, served in U.S. Army intelligence during the Vietnam War and was a CIA operations officer, i.e., agent, for 17 years. Since his time with “the Agency,” Giraldi has been writing for several websites and magazines about national security issues and most particularly about the war on terror.

He has also been the executive director for the past seven years of the 30-year-old Council for the National Interest (CNI), founded by former U.S. diplomats “outraged by the U.S. policy in the Middle East, which was favoring Israel very heavily and damaging our other interests in the region,” explained Giraldi in an exclusive interview with American Free Press.

CNI’s objective is to change “U.S. policy to make it more aligned with U.S. interests and less with Israeli interests,” he added.

The hullaballoo over some words started Sept. 19 when Giraldi penned a 1,483-word piece entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars: Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?” The story may have been relegated to appealing to the choir, if not for a chance event.

 

Giraldi explained what happened.

“Valerie Plame is a former CIA officer like myself,” he began. “She’s best known for involvement with her husband, Joe Wilson, who was in Niger to see if Iraq was buying uranium. This was before the war against Iraq. [Wilson] came back and said, ‘No way, this had never happened.’ And when he did that he was punished, but his wife was punished worse. She was a serving CIA officer, undercover, and Scooter Libby, who was an advisor to Vice President Cheney—and an ardent Zionist, I might add—was so angered by this that he leaked her name and identity to the media, The Washington Post, which picked up on it.”

He continued: “She has been punished again, because she made the mistake of seeing my article online and reading it and then making a comment that it was interesting material. She got jumped on by all and sundry of the Jewish oligarchy in the media and she apologized repeatedly, but they didn’t let up on her for a whole week. I suspect that the fact that she got into the story, and the story then made national news, was what made the story have the kind of currency that it got. I think if she had not been involved, my story would’ve been like other articles that I’ve written where people will say, ‘He’s just another crackpot; he’s an anti-Israeli crackpot.’ ”

Ms. Plame sent the article out to her followers on the social media platform Twitter, and “the Jewish oligarchy in the media” used the “anti-Semitic trick” to get her to grovel and genuflect.

The upside of Ms. Plame’s tweet was the exposure Giraldi’s article received, as well as a follow-up piece he wrote on Oct. 3, entitled “How I Got Fired: Exposing Jewish power in America has real consequences.”

“The original article’s been viewed about 150,000 times,” Giraldi said, “and the comments [responding to the online article] are up to about 1,500. The second article has had about 60,000 views and I think it just broke 1,000 in terms of comments. And some of my older articles also found a new readership as a result and are approaching 50,000 views. So it certainly had a dramatic impact in terms of getting the message out.”

Considering all the exposure his articles had received, AFP asked if the mainstream media reached out to him for comment, as they were relentlessly skewering him.

“The short answer is, ‘No,’ ” he said. “No established mainstream-type outlets have gotten in touch with me, even though the story has been all over the place. It was in The Washington Post, it was in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times; it was everywhere. It was on MSNBC, CNN. But nobody has gotten in touch with me to talk about this. However, from the alternative media, I’ve been run off my feet, in terms of doing interviews, in terms of talking about what this all means.”

Giraldi continued: “Unfortunately, we are seeing the classic exploitation of the heavy Jewish presence over-representation in the media and entertainment industries, to make sure these kinds of stories don’t get out. How long they’re going to be able to do that, I don’t know. I’ve long felt that what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians and also to all of their neighbors is totally indefensible. So how long do you keep this fiction going? I don’t know. I don’t have an answer to that.”

IRS Loses Cases

 

Giraldi explained to this newspaper what he wrote about and why it caused a stir.

“The article was about what I was describing as Jewish power, the ability of Jewish groups and individuals to distort our foreign policy in the Middle East to benefit Israel and to the damage of the United States,” he said. “And I think what set these people off was the fact that I didn’t use a euphemism about who these people were: I said that they were Jewish. And very often you’ll see people writing about Middle East policies and they’ll use expressions like ‘the Israel lobby’ or ‘Zionist’ or ‘neoconservatives.’ But [they are] fudging the basic issue. The basic issue is that this is Jewish money, this is Jewish people with access to the political class and with lots of money, and creating these foundations and organizations that only exist to benefit the Jewish state.”

Giraldi was emphatic that he was not talking about all Jews. He said he was only referring to a select few.

“Not all Jews by any means,” he said, “but I was indicting these people by name. I mentioned who they were and what the organizations were. These organizations are, as far as I’m concerned, committing treason.”

The article made a few recommendations as well, in order to return this once-great nation to the people it was created to serve.

“Actually, I made two proposals,” he explained. “I said, ‘Look, if you’ve got a guy like Bill Kristol—a leading neoconservative and great lover of Israel—on television, and he’s talking about the Middle East and Middle East policy, it might be nice to have a label underneath to tell people who are listening that don’t know about him, that this is a guy who’s partisan.’ And it was kind of a lighthearted comment, because I knew this was never going to happen, but I immediately got jumped on by the usual crowd—like Alan Dershowitz—for this ‘outrageous, anti-Semitic slur.’

“And the other proposal I made was that for Jewish officials in the government who are involved with policymaking, I said, ‘Well, look, if you’re Jewish and you have strong feelings about Israel, when the issue of what the policy should be in Syria or in Iran or indeed in Israel, you should recuse yourself, just like a judge would do in a trial in which he had a personal interest.’ It seemed to make extremely good sense to me to suggest that, and, of course, I got bombed for that one, too.”

Shortly after the article appeared online, Giraldi got a call. “I received a call from the editor [at The American Conservative] about two days after it came out,” Giraldi explained, “telling me that it was completely unacceptable by their standards, and as a result they were terminating their relationship with me.”

AFP asked if his firing sets a dangerous precedent.

“Yeah, we’re in danger,” he said, “because I think the example of what happened to me will keep anyone else from crossing that line and using what I refer to as the ‘J’ word. And I think a lot of people have already figured that out.”

One of the founders of The American Conservative was Pat Buchanan, and his 2003 article, “Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest,” about Jewish political power, set the stage for the anti-war magazine.

“That’s the irony about this whole thing,” Giraldi said. “Pat Buchanan became famous—or infamous, depending on how you want to look at it—when he wrote [that] article denouncing the war in Iraq. And he basically said the same thing that I did. And so here we have the irony of the guy who founded the magazine 15 years ago, and here I’m continuing this tradition of asking the same questions he was asking, and I get fired for it.”

AFP asked what he felt has transpired between the time Buchanan wrote his article and now.

“I think what has happened is that everybody in the publishing industry, which has changed dramatically in the past 15, 20 years, is scrambling for the same dollars, looking for money to survive,” he said. “I suspect what’s happened with The American Conservative, like many other publications, is that they have to basically triangulate where their money is coming from and they move toward what they think is the center. And that means that views that are even quite legitimate—which I feel my viewpoint was—are considered to be too dangerous and too risky. In this case it was too dangerous and too risky even to have me around.”

One of the bright spots of this rather sad affair is the support Giraldi has received.

“I’ve had a lot of calls from friends and people whom actually I didn’t even know,” Giraldi explained, “telling me that, ‘Look, it’s about time that we change the way we think and talk about this issue because there clearly is a superbly well-organized and funded cabal out there which is doing a lot of damage to the United States, and we have to talk clearly about what this means.’ ”

Giraldi next addressed another glaring example of Jewish control over America’s political institutions most painfully illustrated through Senate Bill 720, Sen. Benjamin Cardin’s (D-Md.) Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which “would make it a felony for U.S. citizens to support boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements, punishable by at least a $250,000 fine, with a maximum penalty of a fine of $1 million and 20 years in prison.”

AFP covered this topic in the Oct. 9 & 16 issue on page 15. In the Senate, there are 49 cosponsors—36 Republican and 13 Democrat—and 261 in the House, where it was introduced by Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), from both sides of the aisle. Naturally, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has made the anti-First Amendment measure’s passage one of the group’s top lobbying priorities for the year.

“I had lunch yesterday with a university professor and he told me his tale,” Giraldi said. “He teaches a course in international relations, and as part of the syllabus he had an article that was talking about the Middle East and the author of the article—this was not him, it was the author of the article—had a comment about Israel and its neighbors. The comment was essentially that Israel has very strict immigration laws, but Jewish Americans who support Israel want open immigration in the United States. The article was basically [pointing out that] there’s a contradiction in the way Jewish supporters of Israel see the world.  And this professor was admonished for being an anti-Semite and was almost fired as a result.”

Giraldi concluded the interview by alluding to the obvious.

“When all is said and done the punishment that has been meted out to me and Valerie Plame proves my point: The friends of Israel rule by coercion, intimidation, and through fear,” he said. “If we suffer through a catastrophic war with Iran, fought to placate Benjamin Netanyahu, many people might begin to ask ‘Why?’ But identifying the real cause would involve criticism of what some American Jews have been doing, which is not only fraught with consequences but something that also will possibly become illegal thanks to congressional attempts to criminalize such activity. We Americans will stand by mutely as we begin to wonder what has happened to our country, and some who are perceptive will even begin to ask why a tiny client state has been allowed to manipulate and bring ruin on the world’s only superpower. Unfortunately, at that point it will be too late to do anything about.”

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

 

Who Really Drives America’s Wars?

• Columnist for American Conservative canned for voicing taboo opinions

By Philip Giraldi Ispoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the 600-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.

Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?” It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: Any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep-pocketed individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again.

They are particularly sensitive on the issue of socalled “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel. Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran.

To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself.

But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.

And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in The New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation of “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq.

The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and Bret Stephens. Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of The New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above-cited hawks by name before describing them as “. . . a who’s who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking.

If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last 20 years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”

And I would add a few more names: Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen, and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka, and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neoconservatives.

I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military— David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying. So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews.

Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress regarding Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility, as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task.

The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish. One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan administration, and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby.

Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East—except for Israel, of course. [9/11 Commission executive director] Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel. Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish, and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.

There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust.

This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by Congress.

Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy-making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise First Amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation.

But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage. For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g., Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind of like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison—translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it.




Thanks, Mr. Trump

Project 21, a conservative African-American policy group, is applauding the president for bringing jobs to inner cities and crediting Trump’s populist, America-first economic agenda with the lowest black unemployment rate in 17 years, down from 16.8% at one point during Obama’s presidency. Not surprisingly, mainstream media essentially refuses to cover this good news.

By John Friend

Despite the persistent efforts of the hostile fake news media to discredit and demonize every move President Donald Trump makes, evidence continues to mount demonstrating that the economic prospects for all Americans—including black Americans—are looking brighter and brighter with each passing day.

Trump’s populist, America-first economic agenda has prioritized creating and maintaining jobs in the U.S., reinvigorating American manufacturing and industry, cutting taxes, and dismantling or restructuring trade deals that favor multinational corporations or other nations. The president has repeatedly called for prioritizing American workers and American businesses, putting the interests of U.S. workers and industry first, a stark departure from virtually every American presidential administration in modern memory.

Black Americans in particular have benefited economically under Trump. The unemployment rate for black Americans fell to 7% in September, a 17-year low. One year ago, the black unemployment rate was 8.3%, and had reached a high of 16.8% in March 2010 at the peak of Obama’s reign.

IRS Loses Cases

A variety of black conservatives and activists have praised the Trump administration for the improved economic conditions for not only black Americans but all Americans. Project 21, an initiative of the National Center for Public Policy Research, endeavors to promote the views of black conservatives “whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family, and commitment to individual responsibility has not traditionally been echoed by the nation’s civil rights establishment,” according to the Project 21 official webpage. Leaders and representatives of Project 21 applauded Trump’s economic policies and the resulting consumer and worker confidence in the economy.

“Commonsense measures to reduce regulation are a major step in improving American economic conditions,” Project 21 advisory board co-chair Horace Cooper recently stated. “Once Congress steps up to reduce taxes and repeal Obamacare, the markets and the economy will skyrocket— taking such good fortunes to black America and the rest of the nation.”

Unsurprisingly, this positive news has received little coverage in the fake news media, which is largely hostile to Trump and his America-first agenda.

“With the black unemployment rate falling to its lowest point since April 2000, and considering the persistently high levels of double-digit employment that existed during most of the previous administration, this news should really be garnering more attention,” noted Dr. Derryck Green, a Project 21 member who focuses on economics and black unemployment.

“This should be a source of economic optimism because the job market is expanding and improving overall—particularly among American blacks who were hit hard during the sluggish, so-called economic ‘recovery’ touted by our previous president. It bears remembering that the black unemployment rate at that point had skyrocketed. It was at or near 15% on nine occasions, and near or above 16% 24 other times. While still too high for my liking at 7%, the black unemployment rate has significantly improved since the days of double digits.”

By almost any objective measure, workers and consumers appear to be more confident in their economic prospects than at any other time since before the economic crisis in the mid-2000s. Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds are seeing their economic prospects rise, especially since Trump took office.

Hopefully, Trump will continue to work to implement his populist, America-first foreign and domestic policies.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.




City Insider Reveals Why Lee Yanked

Former Dallas City Council member Sandra Crenshaw explains how a bevy of cultural communists worked to get the general’s statue pulled from its place of honor in Dallas.

By Dave Gahary

Sandra Crenshaw, a black, 65-year-old former Dallas City Council member, who’s part of a predominantly black group that formed to protect Confederate monuments, is steaming mad when she thinks about the recent assault on a statue in her beloved city. On Sept. 14—at a cost of almost a half-million dollars—a crane unceremoniously hoisted the Gen. Robert E. Lee statue that President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated in 1936, renaming Oak Lawn Park to Robert E. Lee Park.

“I was just devastated with these efforts to take down these Confederate statues,” Ms. Crenshaw told this newspaper in an exclusive interview.

Ms. Crenshaw said, “We’re just shocked at the conversation and the hatred and the protest rallies that we are seeing here in Dallas, and we keep asking where this is coming from.”

She’s surprised that the ostensibly organic protests to remove anything Confederate spread to her city, because no groups other than Dallas’s large gay community, which has a long history of opposing the Lee statue, came out to protest. Ms. Crenshaw explained that denizens of Dallas had no need to protest the statue in what she sees as a racially fair city.

“When I was on the park board,” Ms. Crenshaw began, “and we had a slave cemetery without markers, we asked for support to build a monument; it’s the only one in the country. We asked to change the name of the recreation centers—which were named after geographical locations—after African-Americans. So we have federal buildings, an African-American museum at the state fair that rivals any other in this country, a beautiful memorial that sits to the left of a Lee Confederate statue on the state capitol that is just beautiful. Texas is the first state that made Emancipation Day for the blacks a state holiday. We have a Martin Luther King statue, a Rosa Parks statue, tributes to Malcolm X, and so I just don’t know how you could be a much fairer city.”

Ms. Crenshaw explained why the gay community has had their sights on the general for 25 years. “In 1992—when I was on the park board— that was only the second time since 1936 that there had been any desire to take down the Confederate statue in Lee Park,” she said, “and it was the gay community then.” That desire was generated, she explained, by the board’s denial of a request to put up an AIDS memorial in the park.

Another event stirred the gay hornets’ nest as well.

“Lee was a Southern, Christian person,” Ms. Crenshaw explained, “and they used to have an annual Easter symphony [in the park]. The people who lived in that area went to the park department and said they were concerned about bringing their families there for a Christian event and their children having to watch two men kiss. They were very upset about that, and they didn’t know that the park director was a gay person, so the park director let some people know what they were saying. Some on the police department who were angered by this used a gay vice prostitute and caught him in the park having sex, and he got fired [in] a very public firing.”

Since no protests had materialized over any of the Confederate monuments in Dallas in spite of the Charlottesville, Va. mayhem and removal of monuments in other locations, the city’s gay community apparently decided to strike while the iron was hot. They had to overcome, however, a law that had been on the books for over 30 years to protect the monuments.

“In the 1980s,” Ms. Crenshaw explained, “[Dallas] designated all of these statues as art, and to remove them, you had to go through a decommissioning process. So, when Charlottesville, Va. went off like it did, the [Dallas] mayor and the city council panicked, and they said, ‘We better use an emergency clause to go ahead and take this statue down before any harm comes to it.’ So when we filed for a temporary restraining order to keep the city from taking it down, the judge asked [the mayor and city council], ‘What is your emergency purpose for you to circumvent your own public policy that allows the people to vote on whether or not they want to decommission this piece of art?’ And they could not give any evidence of any threats—no call-ins, no pickets, no protestors.

“The next thing,” she continued, “there were 10 or 15 African-Americans, all the TV media’s out there, and they’ve got this rope around Lee’s neck trying to pull the statue down, but there were thousands of members of the gay community, all white people, standing around.”

IRS Loses Cases

Ms. Crenshaw gave her take on these white agitators, who have made up the clear majority of protestors at anti-Confederate events across the country. “I get irate, I get angry, when I see an Anglo person walking around with a sign that says, ‘Make the white race afraid again,’ or wearing t-shirts that say, ‘Black Lives Matter,’ ” she said. “The African-American community that lives here, we don’t even see that statue.”

The so-called protestors then petitioned the court, claiming the “protest” indicated there was indeed a threat to the statue, and got the temporary restraining order removed, leading to removal of the statue. Ms. Crenshaw and her group may have the last laugh, however.

“When they took the Lee statue out of the park,” she explained, “the gays and all of these students, they saw that as a victory for them, not knowing that it was only an emergency clause that allowed them to remove it, to protect the value of it. But it’s coming back up. They can take Lee out of that park but you can’t take Southern heritage out of Texas. This is a fight that we have got to fight. This is a fight that we have got to win, because what comes next?”

The city council will vote in late November on whether and when the Lee statue will be restored to its Lee Park home.

Ms. Crenshaw summed up her feelings on this issue: “We’re not gonna keep fighting this ‘civil war’ over again every two years when someone decides that, ‘I don’t like this, and I don’t like that.’ ”

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