Father Seeks Justice for Activist Son

A young man who went to Virginia to protest the tearing down of a monument now faces years in jail. Recently, AFP spoke with Thomas Gillen’s father about the case and what can be done to help him.

By John Friend

Last October, four young men associated with the Rise Above Movement (RAM)—a physical fitness and self-improvement club affiliated with the broader alt-right movement—were arrested in California and eventually flown to Virginia to face federal conspiracy to riot charges as a result of their participation in the Unite the Right rally in August 2017.

The four men—Benjamin Drake Daley, 25, Thomas Walter Gillen, 24, Michael Paul Miselis, 29, and Cole Evan White, 24—are all native Californians who had been active with the RAM organization and had participated in various political rallies both in California and Virginia.

Thomas T. Cullen, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, announced the charges in early October 2018, yet all four men are still awaiting adjudication. The men stand accused by federal prosecutors of traveling “to Charlottesville for the August 2017 United the Right rally with the intent to encourage, promote, incite, participate in, and commit violent acts in furtherance of a riot,” an incredibly dubious charge that is largely based on malicious “journalism” emanating from left-wing news outlets and activist organizations, including Pro-Publica and the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as radical antifa activist groups.

“This case should serve as another example of the Department of Justice’s commitment to protecting the life, liberty, and civil rights of all our citizens,” Cullen stated in a press release when announcing the highly questionable charges. “Any individual who has or plans to travel to this District with the intent to engage in acts of violence will be prosecuted and held accountable for those actions.”

All four men accused are facing at least five years in federal prison if found guilty. Other members of RAM, as well as countless conservative and alt-right activists who have engaged in public demonstrations and political rallies protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, have also been maliciously slandered by left-wing news outlets, and dubiously prosecuted by authorities.

Subscribe to AFP

Jim Gillen, the father of Thomas, recently spoke with this reporter to offer more insight into the truly outrageous federal criminal charges being pursued against his son and his fellow activists.

“My son has been held in solitary confinement, without bail, in a Charlottesville jail,” Gillen stated.

Thomas Gillen and the other RAM members facing federal charges have since been transferred to the general prison population, but all were held in solitary confinement for a significant portion of their time in federal custody. Gillen went on to describe the charges his son is facing as well as the treatment he has received by federal authorities as “unjust, unfair, un-American, and outrageous.”

“I am a fair and honorable man and I want you to know my son Tom is, too,” said Gillen, a Southern California resident who works as a fireman. “He does not mistreat anyone. I might not agree with all his opinions, but I know the narrative that has appeared in some mainstream media that Tom and the other Charlottesville defendants plotted to intentionally hurt people is simply not true. That is not Tom, and not what the evidence shows.”

Confederate Monuments, Seabrook

Gillen believes the federal charges leveled against his son and others are politically motivated. “I strongly feel the charges against Tom and the others—which threaten them with felony convictions and five years in federal prison—are political in nature,” Gillen stated. “Any impartial person who looks at the evidence would think so. If these charges are not political, why have the antifa demonstrators who openly provoked and committed violence in Charlottesville not been charged with conspiracy to riot?”

Gillen went on to note that antifa activists “have a history of committing and provoking violence all around the country,” as demonstrated at countless conservative rallies and political events over the course of the past four years at least.

“They don’t deny it. They brag about it,” Gillen noted. “They have specifically admitted they did so at Charlottesville.”

“I have looked at numerous videos from Charlottesville and California, and I do not think Tom did anything wrong,” Gillen continued. “At most he was involved in some scuffles in which no one was seriously hurt or injured and which the antifa [activists] themselves provoked. And I am not the only one who thinks antifa provoked these violent encounters. Timothy Heaphy, a prominent Virginia attorney and the former U.S. federal attorney for Virginia, was hired by the City of Charlottesville to investigate the Unite the Right rally and the city’s response, and he and his team did a thorough job. Mr. Heaphy’s report describes how antifa and other counter-protesters blockaded the Unite the Right protesters, who had obtained legal permits to hold their rally, preventing them from carrying on their legal demonstration, while Charlottesville police stood idly by and allowed the inevitable confrontations to take place.”

Gillen was referring to the independent review of the Unite the Right rally published by Hutton & Williams LLP, the law firm where Heaphy formerly worked while conducting the independent review.

Heaphy’s report made clear that the Charlottesville police failed to keep the Unite the Right attendees and counter-protesters, which included radical, violent antifa activists, separated during the day’s events. Even worse, local authorities and law enforcement officials appeared to want the inevitable violent confrontation to take place in order to justify declaring an unlawful assembly, which is precisely what took place.

“We have evidence from the command center that the chief actually said, ‘Let them fight’,” Heaphy stated during a press conference in December 2017 when his report was initially released. “Let them fight for a little while and it’ll make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”

Since publishing his damning report, Heaphy has moved on to accept a position as the top lawyer for the University of Virginia.

Free Expression Foundation

 

“We have the facts from a respected source, and they show that antifa and their hard-left allies provoked confrontations, and the Charlottesville police did nothing to stop them,” Gillen concluded during his conversation with this reporter. “The hard left gets a free pass, but my son and the other defendants face years in prison, are falsely portrayed in the media, and have been miserably treated while in federal custody, held without bail. This should not be happening in America.”

Readers are encouraged to support the Gillens in their efforts to free their son, who is still in federal custody in the state of Virginia. Tax deductible donations may be sent to: Free Expression Foundation, P.O. Box 1479, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




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

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

By Mark Anderson

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

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

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

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

Kingdom Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




Biggest Video Website Will Censor ‘Conspiracy’ Topics

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

By Donald Jeffries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




SPLC Sued Again

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

By John Friend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




Parkland Shooting Report Released

The Florida commission that reviewed the actions before, during and after the Parkland high school shooting on Valentine’s Day 2018 has recommended that districts allow trained school teachers to be armed as well as new law enforcement procedures.

By S.T. Patrick

On Valentine’s Day in 2018, a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD) High School in Parkland, Fla. Seventeen students and staff members were killed, while 17 others were injured. Nearly one year later, the MSD Commission investigating the case has made its final recommendations. The commission’s suggestions may be more controversial than the theories surrounding the original case.

The section immediately highlighted and criticized by the local media was the recommendation that Florida educators who volunteer and undergo training be allowed to carry firearms in schools. The teachers union—relatively weak in Florida, a right-to-work state—and the state PTA both oppose the recommendation of the 446-page report that was unanimously approved by the commission.

Understanding Crime & Gun Control Laws, at the AFP Store.

The report, however, is not law. The Florida state legislature would have to approve the proposals before they could be enacted by the state’s 67 countywide school districts. Every private school, religious and secular, would then have to create their own separate guidelines, as private entities can still legally ban guns on private property.

The more notable areas of the report deal with criticisms of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, whose active shooter policy is said to have contributed to the chaos of the event. The ambiguous policy of Sheriff Scott Israel read that deputies “may” rather than “shall” or “will” confront an active shooter. This gave several deputies a reason to not enter the building to subdue any threat that may have existed. Even Deputy Scot Peterson, who was assigned as the school’s on-site resource deputy, chose to remain outside.

While Israel expressed his disappointment regarding the inaction of Peterson, he justified the previous policy by saying that he didn’t want law enforcement to engage in “suicide missions.”

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, an MSD commissioner, described the generally worded active shooter policy. “ ‘May’ gave them [deputies] the out not to enter,” said Sheriff Judd. “They decided to be cowards instead of heroes.”

Broward County has recently changed its active shooter policy, indirectly accepting some responsibility for the failures of law enforcement. The policy now reads “shall” instead of “may,” which, according to the commission, is more consistent with standard law enforcement procedures.

Other suggestions were contained within the report: that law enforcement officers assigned to public schools undergo annual active shooter training, which would include situations when they are alone; that neighboring, local police forces have radios that can easily communicate between cities; that Florida school districts allow law enforcement real-time access to their internal video surveillance systems; and that schools have single, monitored, staffed points of entry and exit.

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

There was much discussion about safety within classrooms, themselves. The recommendations were that all classrooms have automatically locking doors, windows that can be quickly covered, and two-way intercoms that can be easily accessed in case of emergency. Modern classrooms regularly have school-wide email or messaging systems, but few schools in the age of technology have improved and modernized their intercom systems.

Still perplexing are the mandatory emergency drills conducted by schools every year. Since many school shooters are students who actually attend the school, the mandatory drills do little but to inform the future school shooters of the procedures that will be taken when he or she engages in the act. The mandatory safety drills then become an informational part of the shooter’s planning.

Parkland remains a lightning rod within the alternative political analysis communities. While it appears that a majority of observers do believe that MSDHS was the site of a tragic Valentine’s Day massacre in 2018, there are still some, such as editor Jim Fetzer (The Parkland Puzzle) and commentator Ole Dammegard, who believe that it was a false-flag operation used to heighten the police state and strengthen the anti-gun movement.

The chaos of the day and the ineffective nature of law enforcement behaviors only add to myriad questions that are still asked.

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 [email protected]




Media Ramps Up Attacks on Assange

A mainstream reporter with The Guardian has conjured up a link between Julian Assange and Trump associate Paul Manafort with zero evidence as part of his ongoing attempt to destroy both Assange and whistleblower Edward Snowden. 

By S.T. Patrick

London’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper has unofficially declared war on Julian Assange, the founder of whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks. On Nov. 27, Luke Harding wrote an article for the Guardian accusing former Trump campaign official Paul Manafort of having met with Assange at least three times. These meetings, according to “sources,” were to have taken place in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange resided in political asylum.

The final meeting between Manafort and Assange was said to have taken place in the spring of 2016, when Manafort was made campaign manager for Donald Trump. The implication of the story is that Manafort met with Assange regarding the release of hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails that Russian agents had stolen. According to the questionable Steele dossier, Manafort was the key player in a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between the 2016 Trump campaign and covert Russian agents. He currently awaits sentencing in a jail in Alexandria, Va.

Harding is a foreign correspondent for The Guardian and the author of WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. The book was turned into the film “The Fifth Estate,” which drew objections from WikiLeaks, citing that Assange never rushed to print without redactions.

Licensed to Lie: Corruption in the DOJ
“Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice” – ON SALE NOW at the AFP Online Store

Harding also authored The Snowden Files, a 2014 work about whistleblower Edward Snowden. It, too, was adapted into a film, “Snowden.” Though his written works have received critical acclaim, his recent column pairing Manafort and Assange may be 2018’s biggest fake news story.

Some responsible Democrats have pointed out the obvious holes in the story. Tommy Vietor, a former national security aide to President Barack Obama, noted, “If these meetings happened, British intelligence would almost certainly have video of him entering and exiting.” However, no such video exists. There is also no log of Manafort entering or exiting the embassy, which would have been regular protocol.

Democrats and mainstream media talking heads have jumped on the story to turn attention away from the failed campaign of 2016. Shining the spotlight on Trump via Manafort also keeps the attention away from the contents of the emails themselves, which show collusion within the Democratic Party to keep the nomination away from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The criticism also serves as a dog whistle to the liberal elite.

“The intention is to deeply discredit Assange, and by extension the WikiLeaks organization, in the eyes of right-thinking liberals,” wrote Jonathan Cook of “Consortium News.” “That, in turn, will make it much easier to silence Assange and the vital cause he represents: the use of new media to hold to account the old, corporate media and political elites through the imposition of far greater transparency.”

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

If the DNC email hacking originated from the DNC, then the party would have much explaining to do. The revelation of an inside job would also throw the Seth Rich murder case wide open. Assange has insinuated that the hacked emails came from Rich and were the reason for his murder. Harding’s story also serves to further the attacks on Assange, himself, from an elite media that feels a sense of entitlement about their craft.

Veteran journalistic elitists have long made the assertion that Assange is neither a journalist nor a publisher. If he, then, is neither, he should not be allowed the same first amendment freedoms as other American journalists or foreign journalists operating in America. Worse yet, he could potentially be labeled an unregistered foreign agent.

The Justice Department has already secretly filed charges against Assange. To chip away at his right to declare constitutional protections would be to further injure his case when extradited to the U.S. for trial. In what would be one of the worst miscarriages of justice in American history, Assange could foreseeably spend the rest of his life in a federal prison. It is Trump’s Justice Department that filed the charges against Assange, leading supporters to believe that the chance of a presidential pardon is nil.

If Assange winds up in an American prison, we will know that the Deep State has won. If the Trump administration lubricates that path, then we also have to question the legitimacy of his fight against the shadow government and the mainstream media.

In the end, a jailed Assange, an exiled Snowden, and a statement that disseminators of information online are not constitutional journalists would be the greatest gift of all for those establishment journalists that Trump purports to despise.

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




Why Are Houses Burning, But Not Trees?

Massive home destruction from California wildfires may be linked to “smart meters.”

By Mark Anderson

Longtime activist and Eagle Forum of California President Orlean Koehle is highly doubtful that the widespread fires that have ravaged California are the result of errant “camp fires” and other innocuous causes. She is working with Yreka, Calif. Tea Party member Louise Gliatto to call attention to the digital “smart meters” that monitor customer power usage in most of California and the nation. The goal is to inspire citizens to ask whether these devices are a major reason that entire neighborhoods of homes—in the fires last year and this year—burned so intensely and completely, and often in a uniformly bizarre manner.

Mrs. Koehle said on Nov. 26 that the Press Democrat newspaper in Santa Rosa, Calif. declined to publish her guest column about evidence that smart meters have a low threshold of resistance to power surges and can explode, thereby causing ultra-hot fires when that threshold is breached.

Kingdom Identity

However, another newspaper, the Yreka area’s Siskiyou Daily News in Siskiyou County, ran her column.

Focusing on the fall 2017 Santa Rosa fires, Mrs. Koehle wrote in her column: “So many people are placing the blame for the horrendous fires in Santa Rosa last year (where over 5,000 homes were destroyed and 42 people killed) on PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electrical) for not taking better care of their power lines, which were falling down in the high 60-80 mph winds during the evening and night of Oct. 7-8 and creating sparks that started the fires. Could that be only half of the story?”

She continued: “According to an expert, Bill Bathgate, an electrical engineer who has worked for the Department of Defense, when the power lines were downed they created an electrical surge that went directly to the homes that have smart meters and ‘caused a significant fault and an explosion of the meters.’ The smart meters are designed to resist 300 volts of surge, but the surge was probably much higher—in the thousands of volts—and caused them to explode. Could this explain why so many people as they were fleeing their homes the night of Oct. 8 heard the sound of ‘pop-pop-pop’ explosions?”

Mrs. Koehle told this AFP writer that, according to Bathgate, electrical fires burn with higher temperatures than a normal fire, up to around 3,000 to 4,000 degrees, “hot enough to melt metal” and “even ceramics” including toilets and tubs.

Take Back Your Power DVDs at the AFP Online Store.

She added that this could explain “why hardly anything was left in the homes except the brick fireplaces.” Moreover, “all refrigerators, washing machines and other appliances were melted and the cars in garages were left with only their steel frame; all aluminum had melted, all electrical components were gone, and even the rubber had melted off the tire frames.”

Mrs. Koehle’s home in Rincon Valley in Santa Rosa was directly in the path of the “Tubbs fire” in October 2017, but their home miraculously survived the fire even when their neighbors’ homes around them burned to the ground, again with all metals melted.

Mrs. Koehle and her husband were the only area homeowners who refused PG&E’s smart meter. They kept their old analog meter that lacked a radio-frequency chip and had nothing in it to make it explode. Tragically, in the aftermath of the blaze, the local utility audaciously installed a smart meter anyway.

Analog meters are also grounded, so if there is a surge, it goes into the ground and there is no explosion, Mrs. Koehle said. In south Stockton, Calif., back in March of 2015, more than 5,000 homes were left without electricity after a power line was reportedly hit by a dump truck. The collision caused the upper wire of the power line to fall on the bottom wire, sparking a power surge that caused hundreds of smart meters “to literally explode.”

As for Ms. Gliatto—who agrees that evidence is mounting that smart meters are a strong factor in California’s fires—she said that, as a conservative in north Siskiyou County, it’s not always easy to agree with the more liberal-minded residents to the south, but exploring the smart meter angle has brought about the kind of unity that can easily happen when people stop listening to the divisive mainstream media and start talking amongst themselves to take action.

Get Out of Cash“I found a like-minded person in south county who’s very liberal. And the liberal was shocked that a conservative like me is concerned about smart meters,” she said, while describing the resulting cooperative activities.

“We went to different libraries, one in north county and two in south county to give presentations, and we joined forces with a retired electrician.

We did letters to the editor and a protest in front of our provider, Pacific Power’s office building, and put YouTube videos of the protest online,” she explained. She added that southern Oregon activists are joining northern Californians in the wake of this year’s fires to fully study the issue and seek measures to help people opt out of having to use smart meters, among other objectives.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at [email protected].




Radical Left Shows Its True Colors

The family of politically incorrect talk show host Tucker Carlson has been threatened by unhinged leftists.

By John Friend

Tucker Carlson, the popular and outspoken Fox News host who continues to dominate the cable news ratings, was recently targeted by antifa protesters at his home in the Washington, D.C. area. Police are investigating the protest, which took place while Carlson was at the Fox News studio preparing for his live nightly news program, as a potential hate crime.

On Nov. 7, several members of Smash Racism DC, a radical left-wing antifa-affiliated group, posted Carlson’s home address online before several of its members showed up there to protest. The group of roughly 20 individuals chanted anti-racist slogans outside Carlson’s home and called him a “racist scumbag” that needs to flee the city. Carlson’s wife was home alone at the time, and she quickly called police after hearing loud banging on her front door and people outside with bullhorns screaming.

“I called my wife,” Carlson told The Washington Post after learning about the protest at his home via text message. “She had been in the kitchen alone getting ready to go to dinner and she heard pounding on the front door and screaming. Someone started throwing himself against the front door and actually cracked the front door.”

The participants in the protest posted a video of their actions on social media, but it was quickly removed following backlash. In the now-deleted video, protesters can be heard shouting: “Tucker Carlson, we are outside your home!” Clearly, the group was attempting to intimidate Carlson and his family, a common tactic of radical left-wing antifa groups.

The protesters ludicrously insisted Carlson promotes hate on his nightly news program and preaches “an ideology that has led to thousands of people dying,” according to the video. In an obvious attempt at intimidation, one protester can be heard shouting, “We want you to know, we know where you sleep at night!” The group then began chanting, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”

D.C. police quickly responded to the incident, but as AFP goes to press, no arrests have been made despite the horde vandalizing Carlson’s home with an anarchy symbol. In the wake of several high-profile arrests of right-wing activists who participated in various political rallies over the past two years, many are wondering when political criminals and terrorists on the left—such as those involved in the attempt to terrorize at Carlson’s family—will be prosecuted for their criminal actions.

Alaina Gertz, a spokesperson for the D.C. Metropolitan Police, told the press that an investigation is currently open into the incident.

“We welcome those who come here to exercise their First Amendment rights in a safe and peaceful manner; however, we prohibit them from breaking the law,” Gertz stated the day after the protest. “Last night, a group of protesters broke the law by defacing private property at a Northwest D.C. residence. MPD takes these violations seriously, and we will work to hold those accountable for their unlawful actions.”

In Washington, D.C., a criminal targeting someone for their political views can be prosecuted for committing a hate crime.

“It wasn’t a protest. It was a threat,” Carlson stated in the aftermath of the event. “They weren’t protesting anything specific that I had said. They weren’t asking me to change anything. They weren’t protesting a policy or advocating for legislation. . . . They were threatening me and my family and telling me to leave my own neighborhood in the city that I grew up in.”

In related news, it has also been revealed that Carlson’s daughter was verbally accosted by an irate man while having dinner with her father and brother at a country club in Charlottesville, Va. last month. Juan Granados, a former member of the country club who has since had his membership revoked for his disgraceful actions, stopped Carlson’s daughter while she was walking back to the dinner table after using the restroom.

Get Out of CashGranados asked the young lady if she was sitting with Tucker Carlson, to which she responded, “That’s my dad.” Granados then verbally assaulted the young lady, using vulgar language and insulting her.

Carlson and his son then confronted Granados, who became “profane” once again, according to a statement released by Carlson. In response, Carlson’s son threw a glass of red wine in Granados’s face and demanded he leave the club, which he eventually did.

“Immediately after the incident, I described these events to the management of the Farmington Country Club,” Carlson noted following recent press coverage of this incident. “The club spent more than three weeks investigating the incident. Last week, they revoked the man’s membership and threw him out of the club.”

Holding politically incorrect opinions and being a champion of honest, straightforward journalism is no small task in modern America. As Carlson’s experience shows, the radical left will stop at nothing to intimidate and silence their political opponents, often times using some of the most dishonorable, disgraceful tactics available at their disposal.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




Bipartisan Pastors’ Group Urges U.S. Prison Reform

Strange bedfellows, perhaps, but President Trump and a bipartisan group of black Christian ministers have been meeting to discuss prison reform. S.T. Patrick explains that “most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats have long seen incarceration as one of this country’s gravest ills.”

By S.T. Patrick

No issue seems to have made stranger bedfellows of perceived opponents than the challenge of prison reform. In recent months, groups of black pastors have both visited the White House and stayed in close contact with the Trump administration, urging a partnership on an issue that has long devastated the black community.

RELATED: Listen to S. T. Patrick’s March 2nd interview at Midnight Writer News with Mohamed Shehk of CriticalResistance.org about the Prison Abolition Movement.

CNN’s Don Lemon criticized the group of black pastors for meeting with President Donald Trump, going as far as to tell Pastor John Gray that he was being used as a “prop.” What some casual observers may not realize, however, is that the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats have long seen incarceration as one of this country’s gravest ills.

The modern conservative most closely associated with prison reform was also President Richard Nixon’s “dirty tricks artist,” Charles Colson. He had once boasted that he would “walk over (his) own grandmother” to ensure the reelection of Nixon in 1972. Self-described as Nixon’s “hatchet man,” Colson compiled the “enemies list” of Nixon detractors and was instrumental in orchestrating the illegal actions aimed to discredit whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who had released the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and other newspapers. It was for the Ellsberg activities and not Watergate that Colson would be sent to prison for obstruction of justice in 1974, a sentence he would serve at the federal Maxwell Prison in Alabama.

Kingdom Identity

While going through the legal turmoil that followed Nixon officials out of the beltway, Colson, in August 1973, experienced a religious transformation that would change the rest of his life. Though his attorneys advised him not to do so, Colson pled guilty, a decision he later said was “a price I had to pay to complete the shedding of my old life and to be free to live the new.”

Paroled in 1975, Colson entered into the evangelical movement that was rising throughout the 1970s and forged a new career based upon prison reform. The man who had described himself as Nixon’s “loose cannon” sold millions of copies of his 1976 autobiography Born Again. Though the mainstream media was typically skeptical of Colson’s conversion, 1976 also brought the formation of Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries, which has now opened offices in over 100 countries.

The American Left has long pushed for prison reform, a movement highlighted by the 1968 scandal at Tucker Prison Farm in Arkansas, where investigators discovered a lack of food, 14-hour workdays, systematic rape and the torture of inmates by both guards and inmate “trustees.” It was in January 1968, 50 years ago, that a native Arkansan, Johnny Cash, performed two concerts at Folsom State Prison, thus musically highlighting the need for reform.

Get Out of Cash

Today, the U.S. has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prison population. Lack of treatment as a first step to dealing with drug addiction is a problem that increases incarceration numbers, but so is the over-legislation of American society. According to the Institute for Policy Studies citing John Whitehead, Congress has created an average of 50 new federal crimes per year over the last decade. That means that 500 acts that were legal in 2008 are now illegal and punishable by prison time.

White evangelicals are now on board with prison reform, as well. In May, ministers from across the country met with President Trump to push for a new First Step Act that would allow better conditions for pregnant inmates and would encourage paths to early release for prisoners who earn points for good behavior.

“America is a nation that believes in the power of redemption,” Trump told the audience of ministers.

Whether that belief can transform into action that will give relief to families burdened by the economic and sociological realities of incarceration is the test that analysts believe the Senate may fail. The Senate is populated by stalwarts of their own party’s political machines. They are moderate, by nature, when compared to their more accountable colleagues in the House. Yet, if a popular swell can arise, a movement that rediscovers the belief and hope that America once had in each individual, bipartisan change can occur.

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




WikiLeaks & the Espionage Act

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can’t be tried under the 1917 Espionage Act because he’s a journalist. Should Ecuador oust Assange from its embassy where he’s lived since 2012, he faces extradition by the UK to the U.S. to face charges of leaking classified information. In early October, Ecuador issued a new set of rules for Assange. “Almost seven months after Ecuador threatened to remove his protection and summarily cut off his access to the outside world, including by refusing to allow journalists and human rights organisations to see him, and installing three signal jammers in the embassy to prevent his phone calls and Internet access,” WikiLeaks stated, Assange has filed a lawsuit against Ecuador for the violation of his “fundamental rights.”

By S.T. Patrick

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently told news and commentary website “Consortium News” that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot be tried under the Espionage Act of 1917 because Assange is a journalist. Ellsberg still contends that he, himself, was unfairly indicted under the act in 1973 after he leaked a critical Pentagon study of top-level Vietnam War decision-making to The New York Times and other newspapers.

The charges were dismissed against Ellsberg five months after they were levied in 1973. He has since become an outspoken advocate for whistleblowers and the practice of whistleblowing and has supported Assange as well as Edward Snowden and Chelsea (Bradley) Manning.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

As the pressure and restrictions on Assange heat up in his seventh year within the Ecuadorian embassy in London, changes have been made at WikiLeaks. Assange has appointed Kristinn Hrafnsson as the new editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, though he will remain as publisher. This was announced in a tweet by WikiLeaks after “six months of effective incommunicado detention.” Ecuador’s new President Lenin Moreno has been critical of Assange, but he has stated that Ecuador will maintain Assange’s status “as long as we assume his life may be in danger.”

In an interview organized by “Unity4J.com,” Ellsberg told “Consortium News” editor-in-chief Joe Lauria that the motivations of U.S. leaders have little to do with their repeated justification of “national security.”

“The purpose is not to protect national security but to protect the asses of the people who wrote the directives,” Ellsberg said. He then went on to repeat his long-standing argument that the “classified” label is overused at the expense of the public’s right to know.

Ellsberg then emphasized that the Espionage Act should not be applied to those who are engaging in non-spying activities in an effort to inform the public via publishing or journalism.

“Julian is not a whistleblower per se but a facilitator of whistleblowing,” Ellsberg argued, “the point being that, as a journalist, he cannot fairly be tried under the Espionage Act. . . . It is essential that Julian Assange not be indicted, be convicted, or be extradited to the United States.”

Ellsberg has long been cited as one of the sharpest thorns in the side of the Nixon administration. The administration’s response to Ellsberg was to form a group called the “White House Plumbers,” created by aides Egil Krogh and David Young under John Ehrlichman. The Plumbers would later unsuccessfully carry out the second Watergate break-in. Ellsberg could have made a comfortable life for himself as a Democratic Party politician or activist, but he did not. He has remained loyal to the anti-war movement and to the cause of whistleblowing, regardless of political party.

Get Out of CashIn 2013, Ellsberg became one of the most outspoken critics of the Barack Obama administration’s prosecution of leakers. The administration had prosecuted Manning in 2010 for leaking a large cache of classified documents to Assange and WikiLeaks.

“I’m sure that President Obama would have sought a life sentence in my case,” Ellsberg told The Washington Post in 2013. “First of all, there’s no question that President Obama is conducting an unprecedented campaign against unauthorized disclosure. The government had used the Espionage Act against leaks only three times before his administration. He’s used it six times. He’s doing his best to assure that sources in the government will have reason to fear heavy prison sentences for informing the American public in ways he doesn’t want.”

There is a fear on the part of pro-whistleblower activists that extradition to the United States will almost certainly result in prosecution of Assange by a tough-talking Trump administration. However, there may be a motive beyond national security now, and it may be one that potentially saves Assange. The Trump administration has a vested interest in Assange revealing that his 2016 Democratic Party email leaks came from the murdered Seth Rich, a DNC tech staffer. A Democratic Party that wants that information kept private may also work to block Assange’s extradition, but under different public pretenses.

For Assange’s future, the Rich information may just be the trump card, so to speak, that he needs to guarantee that he can continue the legacy of Ellsberg.

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




Are Violent Leftists Above the Law?

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe has exposed federal employees subverting the president while on the streets of America, antifa activists continue their violence without consequence and are now thumbing their noses at the courts.

By John Friend

Members of antifa, the fanatical, violent left-wing activist organization that regularly engages in intimidation, sabotage, destruction of private property, and outright terrorism against its political opponents, have continued their open defiance of the law, with one prominent member of the D.C. antifa movement publicly refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury subpoena recently.

Paul “Luke” Kuhn, an independent journalist who was exposed for trying to attack and sabotage the DeploraBall 2017 celebration in Washington, D.C. following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, defiantly refused to appear before the federal grand jury after receiving a subpoena relating to videographic and photographic evidence in his possession in an ongoing investigation into antifa violence.

Kuhn appeared outside the courthouse in the nation’s capital alongside fellow antifa activists, who proudly proclaimed their resistance to the grand jury process and their refusal to cooperate. Kuhn eventually burned the subpoena during the press conference while antifa members cheered him on. Video of the entire incident is available online.

“They picked the wrong guy to mess with,” Kuhn declared. “No cooperation no matter what it takes, no matter what the consequences.”

In recent weeks, antifa groups have vandalized and outright destroyed Confederate monuments in the South and have vowed to continue their destruction of private property in order to combat “white supremacy.” In late August, roughly 250 neo-Bolsheviks knocked over and vandalized the “Silent Sam” Confederate statue on the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill campus. Following the toppling of the statue, various groups came out to demonstrate against and in favor of the vandalism, resulting in the arrests of seven individuals.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

This latest news regarding antifa criminality and open defiance of the law comes as Project Veritas, a non-profit organization dedicated to exposing corruption and malfeasance, just published details of an undercover investigation into a current State Department employee who is a leading member of the D.C.-based chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, an extreme leftwing group that is sympathetic to the antifa movement. Project Veritas released an undercover video interview with State Department employee Stuart Karaffa, who openly admits he is working to undermine this president.

The State Department has publicly acknowledged Karaffa is an employee and has stated it is closely reviewing the case.

“I can confirm Stuart Karaffa is a management and program analyst with the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations,” a State Department spokesperson told Breitbart News earlier this week. “We take seriously any allegation of a violation of the Hatch Act and financial disclosure rules and are closely reviewing this matter.” The Hatch Act forbids federal employees from engaging in personal political activity while on duty for the government.

In the video, Karaffa admits he does work for the Democratic Socialists of America while on duty. “I’m careful about it,” he states in the explosive video. “I don’t leave a paper trail.”

The recent investigative report released by Project Veritas is part of its ongoing “Deep State Unmasked” investigative series, which aims to expose the resistance to Trump within the federal government and bureaucracy.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

“This unelected cabal of federal government employees—the Deep Staters—are getting away with subverting the will of the people,” Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe notes. “In fact, the Constitution is being stomped upon by the actions of the members of the Deep State. They are in all branches of government and they are hiding among two million other federal employees.”

The goal of the investigative series is to expose these “Deep Staters” and shed light upon their subversive, corrupt activities.

“Project Veritas must unmask and show you the faces of representative members of the Deep State,” O’Keefe insists. “Government exists with the consent of the governed and that consent cannot be manufactured by the masked and subversive. This truth must be pursued at all costs, including going undercover.”

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




WikiLeaks Whistleblower Awaits Fate

The fate of gutsy WikiLeaks founder and whistleblower Julian Assange rests in the hands of the government of Ecuador, first reported here in AFP’s Issue 33&34. Assange has lived at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012 and will be instantly arrested by the UK if he leaves the building. Just-released news that his health is deteriorating rapidly makes even more urgent Ecuadorian action’s even more urgent. 

By S.T. Patrick

As  the future of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange twists in the political winds, the United States, Great Britain, and Ecuador continue to negotiate over the life of the Australian computer programmer and hacker.

Assange has been housed at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012. According to one of his lawyers, Assange’s health is suffering and, for the past four months, he has been held in a situation that can be more accurately described as “solitary confinement.” The end of WikiLeaks, as well as Assange’s own version of freedom, may soon be near.

The white-haired Australian, Assange, 47, founded WikiLeaks in 2006, but his presence in the global spotlight dates back to 2010 when he published a series of leaks given to him by U.S. Army soldier Bradley (Chelsea) Manning. The leaks, factual yet damaging to the U.S. military’s public image, prompted a federal criminal investigation into WikiLeaks and its founder. Allied nations were encouraged to do the same.

In November 2010, the Swedish government charged Assange with sexual assault and rape. Assange continued to deny the allegations as a political attack. Concerned about being extradited if he surrendered to Swedish authorities, he surrendered to UK officials in December 2010. He was released 10 days later after posting bail. Sweden dropped the charges in May 2017, yet the real possibility of extradition to the United States remained.

When it became apparent that his extradition challenge would prove unsuccessful, Assange absconded and was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government in August 2012. He was granted Ecuadorian citizenship in December 2017.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Technically, Assange is not a prisoner of any government. That is the inevitability that he is trying to avoid. He may leave the embassy, but doing so would trigger the execution of an active warrant that still exists in the UK for jumping bail. If arrested, extradition to the United States seems likely.

Time may be at hand for Assange. On July 27, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno admitted that he has been in talks with the British government to revoke the asylum. Moreno had been a detractor of Assange since taking office in May 2017.

“Mr. Assange is a hacker,” Moreno told reporters. “That’s something we reject, and I personally reject.”

An avid tweeter, Assange has been without Internet, phone, and visitation privileges for months after he criticized the British government for claiming that the Kremlin was behind a nerve gas attack on Sergei Skripal, a Russian intelligence officer, in England earlier this year. He had also been punished by Ecuadorian officials for tweeting about the Catalonian independence movement in Spain.

President Donald Trump praised WikiLeaks amidst the 2016 election campaign, and private tweets from Assange show that the phrase “sadistic sociopath” was used in his description of Hillary Clinton. Special counsel Robert Mueller in July indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers of conspiring to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by hacking into the personal and professional email accounts of top Democrats and turning them over to WikiLeaks. Assange has repeatedly denied that the Russian state was the source of the leaks regarding Clinton.

Because there is a clause in the UK-Ecuadorian extradition treaty that bars one country turning citizens over to the other, Assange’s Ecuadorian citizenship may have to be rescinded for extradition to occur.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

A Trump administration that many had assumed would be friendly to Assange has been more critical in recent months.

In April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions hinted to the media that he would consider bringing criminal charges against Assange.

“We are going to step up our efforts and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks,” Sessions said. “We will seek to put some people in jail.”

Lords of Secrecy, Scott Horton
Lords of Secrecy: The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Warfare, by Scott Horton. Available from AFP.

Former U.S. litigator Glenn Greenwald, founder of “The Intercept” website, believes that extradition to the United States would not be as automatic as is being reported by many news outlets. He calls the British government “subservient” to the United States, yet he points out that the British judges lean more independent. He also points out that the specifics of the U.S.-UK treaty may not allow extradition.

“Political crimes, like publishing documents and engaging in journalism—that really isn’t what extradition is for,” Greenwald said. “And in fact . . . is excluded from most extradition treaties, including the one between the U.S. and the UK.”

Freedom proponents, whistleblowers, libertarians, and government transparency activists all hope that extradition to the United States would eventually lead to a pardon from Trump. If Trump’s first-term maneuvers are any indication, however, that seems unlikely. Trump continues to appoint neoconservatives to key decision-making positions within the administration.

If Assange is extradited to the U.S., it will be a test for Trump. Americans will find out if the independent torch that he so boldly displayed throughout the 2016 campaign is still a reflection of his steadfast beliefs or if it was a façade. For Assange, his life is now in the balance, wavering like the First Amendment freedoms that Americans once thought were constitutionally guaranteed.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” He would love to hear from readers at [email protected] He is also an occasional contributor to THE BARNES REVIEW (TBR) history magazine. For a sample copy of TBR, please send $2 to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003 with your request. Editor’s choice. To subscribe to TBR magazine, send $56 per year inside the U.S. to above address.




Antifa Calls for Violence While Media Stays Silent

Mainstream media seems determined to ignore the often violent actions and outrageous threats of the radical left, focused instead on turning nationalist messages into supposed evidence of the explosive growth of “white supremacy.” 

By John Friend

Antifa and other radical leftist activist groups continue to show their true colors as yet another publicly displayed monument commemorating Confederate soldiers who honorably fought and died in the Civil War has been illegally toppled, this time on the campus of University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

In August of last year, protesters illegally toppled a Confederate monument in Durham, N.C., just days after the Unite the Right rally was held in Charlottesville, Va. Although several suspects involved in the vandalism and destruction of the statue were arrested in Durham, local prosecutors dropped all charges against all of the suspects involved, once again demonstrating that the radical left all too often operates with impunity, violating the law, committing acts of violence, vandalism, and terrorism without legal consequences.

This year in August the radical left struck again, ripping down the Silent Sam Confederate statue on the campus of UNC-Chapel Hill. According to The News & Observer, a regional daily newspaper, the statue was toppled shortly after 9 p.m. on Aug. 20. Prior to the statue being ripped down, protesters vandalized the monument in an attempt to erect an alternative that stood “for a world without white supremacy,” according to reports.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

University officials released a statement calling the action by protesters “dangerous” and vowed to investigate the vandalism and assess “the full extent of the damage.” Chancellor Carol Folt went a step further in a statement released the day after the statue was illegally removed. Folt described the illegal toppling as “unlawful and dangerous” before acknowledging that the monument “has been divisive for years.” Time will tell if local authorities decide to pursue criminal charges against those responsible for the vandalism and destruction of the Confederate monument.

In related news, radical leftist activists violently confronted and clashed with police and members of the media in both Washington, D.C. and Charlottesville, Va. during the Unite the Right 2 rally, which took place in Lafayette Park in the nation’s capital on Sunday, Aug. 12. Leftist activists took to the streets to protest the one-year anniversary of the first Unite the Right rally, and to counter-protest the second event, organized by activist Jason Kessler.

In Charlottesville, antifa protesters not only clashed with police but also heckled and harassed members of the media. At one point, a protester violently struck the camera of an NBC reporter. Amazingly, NBC actually downplayed the assault in later reporting.

Other radical leftist protesters in Washington, D.C., who were interviewed by independent journalists during their counter-protest of the Unite the Right 2 rally, openly admitted to supporting violence against their political opponents, including President Donald Trump. When asked what they would do to Trump if he were in their presence, many of the leftist protesters stated they would use violence against the president.

“We’d have to do him like Qaddafi,” one protester stated, referring to the violent death of the hysterically demonized former Libyan leader. Others were more specific. “I would murder him, for the people,” one young man declared.

The radical left, which is often portrayed as a righteous, non-violent, tolerant movement opposed to oppression and fighting for equality and peace, has become increasingly more explicit in their justification for violence. In case after case, radical leftist activists justify pre-emptive violence against their political opponents or destruction of private property as morally sanctioned in the broader struggle against “white supremacy” and “racism.” For the most part, the mainstream media not only downplays the calls for violence but actually enables them by not pressing charges when their own reporters are attacked.

Will Trump and other political leaders finally have the courage and conviction to confront the radical left and their open use of political violence, terrorism, and criminal acts of vandalism?

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




Why Can’t We Sue the TSA for Assault?

It was reported recently that the TSA has created a list to track so-called “troublesome passengers.” If this is true, why can’t American citizens do the same or even sue TSA agents, who are especially troublesome, like the ones who harass kids and little old ladies in airport security lines? 

By Dr. Ron Paul

When I was in Congress and had to regularly fly between D.C. and Texas, I was routinely subjected to invasive “pat-downs” (physical assaults) by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). One time, exasperated with the constant insults to my privacy and dignity, I asked a TSA agent if he was proud to assault innocent Americans for a living.

I thought of this incident after learning that the TSA has been compiling a “troublesome passengers” list. The list includes those who have engaged in conduct judged to be “offensive and without legal justification” or disruptive of the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Libertarian journalist James Bovard recently pointed out that any woman who pushed a screener’s hands away from her breasts could be accused of disrupting the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Passengers like me who have expressed offense at TSA screeners are likely on the troublesome passengers list.

Perhaps airline passengers should start keeping a list of troublesome TSA agents. The list could include those who forced nursing mothers to drink their own breast milk, those who forced sick passengers to dispose of cough medicine, and those who forced women they found attractive to go through a body scanner multiple times. The list would certainly include the agents who confiscated a wheelchair-bound three-year-old’s beloved stuffed lamb at an airport and threatened to subject her to a pat-down. The girl, who was at the airport with her family to take a trip to Disney World, was filmed crying that she no longer wanted to go to Disney World.

The TSA is effective at violating our liberty, but it is ineffective at protecting our security. Last year, the TSA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), conducted undercover tests of the TSA’s ability to detect security threats at airports across the country. The results showed the TSA staff and equipment failed to uncover threats 80% of the time. This is not the first time the TSA has been revealed to be incompetent. An earlier DHS study found TSA screenings and even the invasive pat-downs were utterly ineffective at finding hidden weapons.

The TSA’s “security theater” of treating every passenger as a criminal suspect while doing nothing to stop real threats is a rational response to the incentives the TSA faces as a government agency. If the TSA puts up an appearance of diligently working to prevent another 9/11 by inconveniencing and even assaulting as many travelers as possible, Congress will assume the agency is doing its job and keep increasing the TSA’s budget. Because the TSA gets its revenue from Congress, not from airline passengers, the agency has no reason to concern itself with customer satisfaction and feels free to harass and assault people, as well as to make lists of people who stand up for their rights.

Congress should end the TSA’s monopoly on security by abolishing the agency and returning responsibility for security to the airlines. The airline companies can contract with private firms that provide real security without treating every passenger as a criminal suspect. A private security firm that assaults its customers while failing to detect real dangers would soon go out of business, whereas the TSA would likely have its budget and power increased if there was another attack on the U.S.

If shutting down the TSA is too “radical” a step, Congress should at least allow individuals to sue TSA agents for assault. Anyone who has suffered unfair treatment by the TSA as a result of being put on the “troublesome passengers” list should also be able to seek redress in court.

Making TSA agents subject to the rule of law is an important step toward protecting our liberty and security.

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.

 




If This Woman Still Has a Job by the End of Today…

By AFP Staff

Why is it that radical liberal activists only believe free speech and the First Amendment apply to them? Take the case of Allison Hrabar. According to conservative news and commentary website “The Daily Caller,” Ms. Hrabar was one of the activists who chased Homeland Security chief Kirstjen Nielsen out of a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C. on the evening of June 12 over the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

A Trump staffer outed Ms. Hrabar to “The Daily Caller,” saying she was part of the group that walked into the restaurant and then proceeded to harass Ms. Nielsen until she left the establishment.

In video that was posted to the Internet documenting the demonstration, activists can be heard chanting, “Kirstjen Nielsen, you’re a villain, locking up immigrant children.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Well, it turns out that Ms. Hrabar gets her paycheck from the Department of Justice working as a paralegal.

Over the past few years, dozens of conservatives have lost their jobs because of extracurricular activity that someone somewhere found to be offensive. AFP’s own reporter John Friend was one such victim when a radical keyboard activist tracked Friend down at his job with a local California government agency. Friend operates his own website where he writes about politics and history and occasionally dabbles in contentious issues.

This individual in question ended up harassing Friend’s boss, threatening to “expose” them for having Friend as an employee. Even though Friend was an exemplary employee who didn’t bring his politics to work, he was still unceremoniously fired.

Now, with her job apparently on the line, Ms. Hrabar is crying that she has a First Amendment right to protest after work hours.

This is how another conservative news website reported it: “The Washington Examiner spoke with Hrabar Wednesday and she defended her behavior as off government time and a use of her First Amendment rights.”

The problem is, apparently, Ms. Hrabar reportedly uses company time to tweet about politics.

According to “The Daily Caller,” Ms. Hrabar tweeted June 13 at 1:56 p.m., “Keeping families together in jail is not an acceptable solution.”

We at American Free Press actually support Ms. Hrabar’s First Amendment right to protest on her own time. However, you can’t have it both ways. If conservatives can be fired for their political views outside of work, then extreme liberals should not expect to be safe in their jobs, either.

You can watch the protest video here: