Charlottesville: Gladio Meets Cointelpro?

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

By Kevin Barrett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRS Loses Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Coconut Oil Unjustly Attacked

The mainstream medical monopoly continues waging a war of lies on saturated fats, supported by the majority of corporate media parroting the establishment line as to what is and is not healthy for us. Apparently, we should simply believe the “experts” and never ask qui bono . . . who benefits? 

By James Spounias

A recent American Heart Association (AHA) “presidential advisory,” posing as science, blasted coconut oil as part of a larger attack on saturated fats. The advisory was published in the association’s journal, Circulation, in June.

The topic of coconut oil’s benefits was sparked in the 1990s by Tom Valentine, host of “Radio Free America,” in interviews with Dr. Mary Enig, who explained how coconut oil was maligned.

Dr. Enig, a founding board member and later vice president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, brought to light the dangers of man-made trans-fatty acids (hydrogenated oils), a blight on American health that is still abundant and “legal” in America’s food supply.

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

Valentine was never credited for his daring reporting, likely because Liberty Lobby, Radio Free America’s sponsor, was blacklisted as a source of news long before the issue of so-called fake news became part of the national conversation.

The AHA admitted in its recent advisory that there are no studies directly indicting coconut oil: “Clinical trials that compared direct effects on CVD (cardiovascular disease) of coconut oil and other dietary oils have not been reported.”

So, why the fuss?

The AHA cherry-picked four studies to support the wrong-headed conclusion that saturated fats increase cholesterol levels, which in turn increase cardiovascular disease. The selected studies are problematic.

For instance, the study with the largest number of participants (skewing results) was not a randomized control trial, and it involved hospital patients who were being treated with antipsychotic medications, which were later found to increase heart disease.

Studies that support the idea that saturated fats are not implicated in heart disease or may be beneficial for heart health and cancer prevention were excluded.

Many factors impair cardiovascular health, such as hydrogenated fats, fluoridated water, and many prescription drugs, particularly by causing inflammation.

The hydrogenation issue is the elephant in the room, so to speak. As Dr. Enig wrote in 2009, many of the studies used to blame coconut oil for cardiovascular ill-health were done using hydrogenated coconut oil.

Dr. Enig wrote on “WestonPrice.org” that “saturated fats do not clog arteries, whether they are the short- and medium-chain type in coconut oil or the longer-chain fatty acids in beef, cream, and cheese.”

Even The New York Times on March 1, 2011 confirmed what Dr. Enig wrote by quoting Thomas Brenna, professor of science at Cornell University: “Most of the studies involving coconut oil were done with partially hydrogenated coconut oil, which researchers used because they needed to raise the cholesterol levels of their rabbits in order to collect certain data.” Dr. Brenna explained, “Virgin coconut oil, which has not been chemically treated, is a different thing in terms of a health-risk perspective. And maybe it isn’t so bad for you after all.”

Gideon Elite book cover

Yes, you read that correctly: Even The New York Times wrote that hydrogenated oils were used to raise cholesterol levels. The tepid conclusion, “isn’t so bad for you after all,” doesn’t go nearly far enough, though. Coconut oil’s benefits include its powerful antibacterial and anti-microbial properties, as well as the fact it is used by the body for a solid source of “energy” rather than storage.

Dr. Enig pointed out that flawed coconut oil studies didn’t involve only the cholesterol/heart disease fallacy, but included the area of cognitive function as well. Dr. Enig wrote, “It is important to explain why so many animal studies get negative results for coconut oil. The coconut oil used in laboratory studies is usually fully hydrogenated coconut oil. The process of full hydrogenation gets rid of all the unsaturated fatty acids in coconut oil.

“Researchers began using fully hydrogenated coconut oil to study the effects of essential fatty acid (EFA) deficiency. They used coconut oil because it is the only fat that can be fully hydrogenated and still be soft enough for rats to eat. The poor results obtained in these studies, such as mental impairment, are due to EFA deficiency and not the fault of the saturated fats in coconut oil. It is extremely deceitful for commentators to blame coconut oil in studies such as these, as they often do.”

Coconuts and coconut oil have been used for thousands of years in native diets without any indication that coconut oil contributes to heart (or other) disease. In fact, population studies have shown less cardiovascular insult in those who consumed coconut and other tropical oils.

In the 20th century, polyunsaturated vegetable oils became an industry favorite, and science was “bought” to attack saturated fats to favor certain vegetable oil interests.

AHA scientists are not stupid people, but rather part of an organized movement to keep people misinformed enough to not deeply question our food supply and pharmaceutical interventions. There’s pushback, though. Truth will win out.

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine.




AFP’s July 31 & Aug 7 Edition Now Available Online For Free

Get a PDF copy of the latest issue of AMERICAN FREE PRESS for free by clicking here.

Even better, get access to AFP Online all year long for only $15 with an archive that goes back to AFP’s issues published in 2006, by clicking here.

No credit cards. PayPal only!




AUDIO INTERVIEW & ARTICLE: Texas Maverick Runs for Congress

Texas native and Libertarian congressional hopeful Nicholas Landholt pays no income taxes and pushes for state militias to defend against tyranny. Landholt sat down for an interview with Dave Gahary to discuss his congressional campaign and related issue.

By Dave Gahary

Nicholas Landholt is a man on a mission. Born in San Antonio, Texas in 1955, Nick served in the U.S. Navy for 10 years, where he met his wife, and has been married for 36 years. Landholt ran for Congress in 2016 on the Libertarian Party of Texas ticket last year and did surprisingly well, and he’s gearing up for another run next year.

American Free Press sat down with Landholt—whom some libertarians call “The Militia Guy”—for an exclusive interview on his upbringing and his ideas to get America back to the people it was founded for.

Click on the image below for AFP’s exclusive interview with Nicholas Landholt.

“I almost went into the seminary,” Landholt began, “but my dad was seeing some of the uproar that was happening in the Catholic Church, so he thought it best that I not go into the seminary where I could possibly lose my faith. I sort of did during high school and college anyway.”

Landholt’s dad, who—like his mom—had a great impact on his life, had another idea.

“My dad thought it would be good for me to get into the military and to kind of grow up, you might say,” he said.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

WILLING TO TAKE THE HEAT

“In 1996, I stopped paying and filing [federal] income taxes,” he said, “but I stayed underneath the radar because I had three boys and a wife that I was supporting. But it was in the last five years—because the boys are grown now—that I said it’s time to have a coming-out party. And whether it’s shaming patriots or so-called “Christians” into doing what we’re supposed to be doing—living the Gospel and taking on the enemies of Christ the King—we need to do something quickly. So I want people to know I’m for real and I’m willing to take the heat, but I need a support team behind me; I don’t wanna be charging up the hill on my own.”

Landholt recounted his anti-tax/pro-militia congressional campaign in Texas’s 11th congressional district.

“I filed to run in December 2015, and it was a few months later that I started to get into the whole militia aspect and the IRS,” he said. “I don’t know if those were just two hot issues that the Libertarians did not want to address or not, but . . . I was basically kind of left out there on my own. So not having run a campaign, not knowing rules, I just kind of let it come to me, and it never did come to me.”

Although he had no campaign contributions, he did quite well at the polls.

“In 2016, running a one-man campaign with no bank account, I still got over 23,000 votes,” he said. “My campaign was against 10-year incumbent Mike Conaway, [a] RINO.”

A RINO, or “Republican in Name Only,” is a term frequently used to describe “insufficiently conservative” Republicans.

Kenneth Michael “Mike” Conaway—in office since Jan. 3, 2005—Landholt explained, “has a ‘Liberty Score’ of ‘F’ with Conservative Review,” a group that ranks politicians along a conservative scale.

“[Conaway] got just over 200,000 votes,” Nick said, in a district of about 750,000 residents.

Landholt figures there are at least another 200,000 voters who never went to their polling place. The 11th congressional district is very rural, encompassing 29 counties.

“So there are 29 county sheriffs,” Landholt explained, “[who] could be educated on the income tax and why they should be keeping the IRS agents from harassing taxpayers who choose to actually follow the IRS regulations regarding income tax.”

“It was a very winnable race,” Landholt continued, “and I think the fact that I got 23,000 votes without basically doing anything kind of tells the level of disgust that Texas voters have with status-quo politics. We need resources, so that’s why I’m looking for a campaign manager who knows what they’re doing and can go from there.”

IRS Loses Cases

Landholt explained his views on why Americans are not required to pay federal income taxes.

“I always tell people we’re distinguishing here between income taxes and other taxes,” he explained. “Obviously, I pay taxes; I pay my fair share. You pay taxes almost all the time: sales tax, gas taxes etc. But federal income taxes, I’m not a federal citizen. I don’t work for an employer who contracts with the federal government. And that’s kind of in a nutshell what it boils down to. But I don’t ever advise somebody to just stop paying taxes; that’s a decision you’re gonna have to make on your own.”

NICHOLAS LANDHOLT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

“The Preamble of the Constitution begins ‘We the People,’ meaning the People are the authority over the Constitution. And it is not a stretch to say that the first 13 words of the Second Amendment—‘A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State’—are the most important words in the Constitution. The People ARE the Militia, and patriots can see that our Founders were telling us ‘No Militia, No Free State.’ ”

AFP asked the purpose of the militia as it relates to his views on the federal income tax and if it would be used to physically fight the federal government.

“No, [Constitutional] militia is a defensive situation, and it’s not just fighting, but militias can be used for natural disasters—Hurricane Katrina and those kind of things. Instead of having FEMA, National Guard troops, the local militarized police forces going up and down the street knocking on doors and taking weapons away, you’d have local people who are militia helping out during situations.”

Landholt continued. “The purpose of the militia is threefold: to execute the laws of the Union, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections,” he began. “The money powers are not going to give up their investment—and we’re talkin’ over a hundred years—without a fight, and of course, they use the police state as their weapon of choice to fight Christian patriots. The IRS, the money powers, they’re not gonna go away quietly, so I presume that we’re going to need militias for defensive purposes.”

Landholt harkened back to the origins of this once-great national federation.

“As the Founding Fathers said,” he stated, “if you read between the lines—the lines being the first 13 words of the Second Amendment—‘a well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.’ Reading between the lines, the Founders were saying, ‘No militia, no free state.’ Well, that’s what I’m trying to get across not only to voters but to the youth, because the youth have no future if they don’t get involved and help us turn things around.”

AFP readers can reach out to Landholt to help get him in office at nlandholt@hotmail.com or by phone at 631-741-1757.

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 or call (850) 677-0344 for more information and to get the new book on which the movie will be based, Erasing the Liberty.




Doctor Sues to Stop Naled Spraying

A Miami physician and an attorney have filed an injunction against Dade County to stop the rampant, dangerous use of naled, an organophosphate insecticide in its “air war on mosquitoes.” The plaintiffs say local government is not following EPA guidelines that require proper notification to residents to take precautions. Other, non-harmful mosquito management techniques are available and should be implemented as an alternative to spraying us all with poisons. 

By James Spounias

You can almost hear the soundtrack from the popular show, “Twilight Zone,” which aired from 1959-1964, with this introduction: “Imagine your local government sprays a dangerous pesticide to kill non-disease carrying nuisance mosquitoes without warning or giving precautions, as it has for decades. Those who object are dubbed ‘woo-woo’ and ‘pseudo-science’ even though those who spray have no proof it is harmless to human and ecological health. Those who object are crazy. Those who spray, though, are right.”

It’s not a script from a science-fiction movie but something that has occurred in much of the world without much scrutiny. Until now.

Dr. Michael Hall and Cindy Mattson, attorney at law, filed an injunction against Dade County to halt the use of naled, an organophosphate insecticide, on the grounds that local governmental bodies are not following Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, which require that local agencies provide notice and warn residents to take precautions.

The suit requests that the spraying be halted until evidence about safety can be presented.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Hall has created a crowdfunding page on the Internet to raise money for the suit, detailing the harm naled brings to people.

Many Florida counties are spraying naled to kill “marsh” mosquitoes, which have appeared in unusual activity this year.

Marsh mosquitoes are a nuisance but do not carry disease, making the “basis” for using naled more hollow than using it against disease carrying Aedes aegypti, which is said to carry Zika.

Gideon Elite book cover

This writer has debunked lies about the threat of the disease called Zika and the use of naled in several articles published in American Free Press, underscoring many among the long list of environmental assaults that go under the radar yet pose serious danger to the health of humanity.

Hall’s crowdfunding page appeal states: “We seek an immediate federal injunction and litigation to prevent and stop the use of naled in south Florida. We have a legal team ready to move if we can finance the cause. Why do we need to do this? It’s simple. We need to stop the poisoning of our environment, ecosystem, and human species or we will destroy our planet. If we don’t draw a line in the sand, the spraying of naled will continue.”

Hall makes the case that naled kills natural predators of mosquitoes, such as dragonflies, that each eat hundreds of mosquitoes a day. Many other parts of the ecosystem are also affected, including birds, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, and other insects.

The Miami doctor writes that naled is a “carcinogen, neurotoxin, and endocrine disruptor” that is problematic for those with “compromised immune and nervous system, which would allow for the development of life-long allergies or autoimmune disorders and gut disorders.”

Fetuses are especially susceptible to damage by naled and all organophosphates, as they “disrupt the normal functioning of brain development in human fetuses.”

Hall warns that “well-known short-term and long-term human biologic damage to DNA based on epigenetics factors is known to occur with organophosphate pesticides retained in humans (young infant through elderly), pets, home garden vegetables, and fruit etc.,” raising the important point that we really don’t know what the long-term effects are on the human body, let alone generational defects that may occur in progeny.

Hall cites a study that implicates the use of organophosphates to rises of autism and related disorders in areas that have been sprayed.

What’s left unsaid is just because we don’t drop dead from pesticide spraying does not mean the practice is “safe.”

It may well be that organophosphates are the cause or at least a key contributing factor to bringing on disease states as part of the “toxic burden” plaguing much of the world.

While it is a tall order to ask a federal court to stop a practice local counties have been doing for decades, it is the hope of this writer that the practice is halted and the use of organophosphates is eliminated.

Non-Pesticide Solutions to Mosquitoes

Counties should be considering using other, non-toxic methods to control populations of mosquitoes. In Caguas, Puerto Rico, local officials are using modified five-gallon buckets to make what are known as autocidal gravid ovitraps (AGOs). They are placing these all over to cover their city center.

The Miami Herald reported: “The buckets are a study in simplicity. Each one holds a few inches of water and fermenting hay that lures the Aedes aegypti in through a fist-sized opening at the top. A screen prevents the mosquito from reaching the water, and the insects get caught in sticky, non-toxic resin inside the opening. The traps cost about $11 each, and although they’ve been used to monitor mosquito populations in the past, they’re just now being considered eradication tools.”

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bt) is a bacterium that kills mosquito larvae, which is effective in preventing the proliferation of mosquitoes. Killing larvae doesn’t affect existing mosquitoes but rather prevents the growth of more, and it is much safer than genetic modification. Bt is considered non-toxic to people and fishes and often used by organic gardeners.

We must explore these and other pest control methods given the danger of pesticides to health.

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine.




Judge Will Rule on Arpaio Case Soon

Attorneys for retired Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio are “highly optimistic” the lawman will get a favorable verdict in the Obama DOJ-carryover case against him. Arpaio has been charged with misdemeanor contempt of court for turning over illegal aliens who had been arrested by his department to federal immigration authorities—one of the key things that got him repeatedly re-elected by the people of a county that borders Mexico and appreciated his work.

By Mark Anderson

PHOENIX, Ariz.—Mark Goldman, one of the attorneys for former Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the veteran lawman’s criminal trial that just wrapped up in Arizona, says he’s highly optimistic that Arpaio will not be convicted, because the three essential conditions under which he could be found guilty of a misdemeanor “contempt of court” charge were not met in court.

“We feel very happy,” Goldman told this AFP writer July 7, the day after closing arguments were heard in this widely watched case. The trial, initially expected to last at least eight days, ended up with only four days of testimony in late June, plus closing arguments on July 6.

Goldman feels good about the case because federal prosecutors evidently didn’t come close to proving even the first of those three conditions, let alone the other two.

IRS Loses Cases

The first condition is that a 2011 federal court injunction—purportedly issued to try to stop Arpaio from apprehending illegal aliens—must have been “clear and definite” in its meaning. While Arpaio is accused of contempt of court for allegedly defying the injunction, it appears the injunction was worded too vaguely for federal prosecutors to have a clear shot at winning their case against the popular lawman.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

During Arpaio’s time as Maricopa County sheriff, the former Drug Enforcement Agency officer’s deputies would turn over apprehended illegal aliens to the federal government for processing, due to serious concerns in the densely populated county—just a few miles from the border—about drug-running, human trafficking, and other crimes fostered by U.S. open-borders policies and attitudes.

In federal district court in Phoenix, Judge Susan Bolton “picked up on the fact that the [injunction] was anything but clear and definite,” Goldman summarized. He stressed that, since testimony from both sides revealed that the 40-page injunction failed to be clear and definite, then the other two conditions that the prosecution trotted out could not realistically be met.

Those other conditions were that Arpaio was aware of the injunction’s details and that he knowingly and willfully violated the injunction.

“No one who testified understood [the injunction’s meaning] when it was issued,” Goldman told American Free Press .

He said that the apparent clincher came when the star witness of the Department of Justice, Tim Casey—Arpaio’s former attorney, who evidently turned against Arpaio—admitted during cross-examination that the injunction was not clear and definite. “To me, that’s enough to make this whole case go away . . . so Joe’s feeling pretty good at this point,” Goldman said.

Arpaio himself was not yet at liberty to directly speak with AFP, pending the judge’s decision.

Gideon Elite book cover

Also according to Goldman, Joe Sousa, who was Arpaio’s lieutenant for the human-smuggling unit at the sheriff’s department, testified for the defense that, with Casey serving as Arpaio’s attorney at the time, never once did Casey inform Sousa or the department that they may have incorrectly interpreted the injunction when going about their job of apprehending those found to be illegal aliens during standard law enforcement, which the feds have constantly labeled as “racial profiling.”

Casey had free access to the smuggling unit, and it would have been his job to know of or discover a possible injunction violation and communicate his views to the sheriff’s department, Goldman added.

“Joe never interfered. And he had Casey as an attorney to instruct [Joe’s] subordinates on how to interpret the injunction,” Goldman said.

Since Arpaio was unable to secure a jury trial, Judge Bolton will decide the matter. That won’t happen until July 21 or later, however, the date that attorneys for both sides were asked to submit briefs on “applicable law” to aid the judge in deciding this case.

Prosecutors have maintained that Arpaio intentionally and defiantly prolonged patrols to apprehend illegal aliens for 17 months after the injunction was issued. But as July 21 approaches, it appears that this narrative is part of an effort by the Justice Department, in a carryover from the Obama administration, to conduct a political hit against Arpaio.

That view is widely held, because the misdemeanor lawsuit, filed just days before the last sheriff’s election in November 2016, helped unseat Arpaio in his re-election bid.

Arpaio’s backers say that the case vividly illustrates one key way that left-leaning politicians and their cohorts in the courts, major media, and elsewhere go about discrediting concerted, effective efforts to secure America’s borders.

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




We Have the Freedom to Starve

“Anti-Semitic” and “racist” epithets are trotted out any time “establishment truth” is challenged or Israeli policies are criticized, in an effort to create in the reader a knee-jerk emotional aversion to a writer or publication. But it’s valuable to pause and ask, first, what does “anti-Semitic” even mean? Furthermore, does challenging the politics or culture of a particular group—such as a nation’s government—necessarily equate with “racism”? 

By Kevin Barrett

Wells Fargo is one of America’s sleaziest and most disreputable big banks. Their deceptive credit-card pitches contain small-print clauses allowing them to suddenly jack up their “introductory rates” and hit you with usurious 30%-plus interest. So it shouldn’t really surprise anyone that Wells Fargo canceled AFP’s credit-card processing account because some billionaire banker somewhere doesn’t like some of the books AFP sells. And it is shocking—but hardly surprising—to learn that the banking industry is trying to put AFP out of business by adding it to a credit-card-processing blacklist.

A spokesman for the blacklisters said the reason for this financial war is that AFP sells “racist and anti-Semitic books,” namely those by Michael Collins Piper. Naturally, he hasn’t even read any of Piper’s books. If he had, he would know that there was never a single racist bone in Piper’s body.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Let’s define our terms here. “Racist and anti-Semitic” is a redundant expression. “Anti-Semitism” is a form of racism holding that Jews are biologically inferior because they are a “Semitic” people related to Arabs. Actually, neither Jews nor Arabs are their own race. Judaism is a religion professed by people from many races and cultures, while “Arabs” are simply the many different kinds of people, ranging from Sudanese blacks to blond-haired, blue-eyed Syrians and Lebanese, who happen to speak Arabic.

The pseudo-scientific racist theory known as “anti-Semitism” was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but today, it is Arabs, not Jews, who are the main victims of this kind of racism. Ironically, the country with the worst anti-Semitic (anti-Arab) racism is the state of Israel.

As for Piper’s books, they contain no racial hatred or bigotry of any kind. They are critical of certain aspects of Jewish culture, specifically the ruthless tribalism that prevails among some Jewish-Zionist elites, especially those that work with the criminal underworld. That is cultural critique, not racism.

I am highly critical of the segment of the Arab-Muslim political elite that runs “Saudi” Arabia. That does not make me an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigot.

Freedom means nothing if we are not free to critique the culture and politics of the various power elites that rule our world. Piper saw the rising power of Jewish-Zionist elites in the U.S. and discussed the issue reasonably and rationally—if sometimes passionately—in an evidence-based fashion without any reference to or interest in “race.” His investigations into such issues as the JFK assassination and 9/11 were ahead of their time.

It is a national scandal, and a symptom of our national decline, that the whole banking establishment can wage an economic war aimed at the suppression of Piper’s books—without a peep of protest from the ACLU and the supposedly free speech-supporting mainstream media.

Liberty Stickers

The economic assault on AFP is just the latest salvo in what is becoming an all-out Zionist war on free speech. Professor William Robinson’s book We Will Not Be Silenced: The Academic Repression of Israel’s Critics covers several Zionist attempts to quash academic freedom. Now they are targeting booksellers, not just academics.

When I was driven from the academy for questioning 9/11, I assumed I would be free to sell books and articles and solicit donations to support my independent scholarship and radio broadcasts. How could such activities ever be quashed? After all, we still have the First Amendment, right?

Unfortunately, the Constitution only limits the power of government, not the corporate sector. As private monopolies gobble up entire industries, grabbing as much power as governments but without any of the transparency or responsibilities, they have begun to insist that we toe their ideological line on pain of expulsion from the economy. A few months ago, Amazon banned hundreds of history books. At about the same time, my main fundraising platform and database (GoFundMe) closed my account and stole more than $1,000. Various Facebook accounts, including the Nation of Islam’s, have been frozen or shut down for political reasons. Now AFP is being blacklisted.

To buy and sell information, we will soon be microchipped with a “Mark of the Beast” guaranteeing that our views are inoffensive to the powers-that-be. Violators will be banned from economic transactions. They will still be free—free to starve.

Such evil acts of political censorship are exactly what we should expect from the too-big-to-fail financial pharaohs who seized the reins of power in America in the Federal Reserve coup d’état of 1913.

The lesson is clear: If we want to preserve what’s left of freedom in America, we need to overthrow the banksters in a Second American Revolution. 􀀀

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




Gun Control: A Colorblind Issue

In yet another appalling example of political correctness-induced cowardice on the part of America’s so-called mainstream media, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has dumped a black conservative columnist. Why? She penned a column defending the National Rifle Association and the rights of gun owners in response to an outrageous opinion piece from a retired leftist professor in Missouri asserting there is no difference between the NRA and ISIS, and that gun owners love their guns more than their children.

By Mark Anderson

Conservative columnist Stacy Washington wrote a column challenging a recent editorial written by an academic who compared the National Rifle Association (NRA) to the radical Islamic ISIS terrorist organization.

However, rather than stand up for her right to free speech, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, where her freelance column had been a regular feature, unceremoniously dumped her.

Ms. Washington, a decorated Air Force veteran, Emmy-nominated TV personality, and host of the nationally syndicated radio program “Stacy on the Right,” already had an understanding with the Post-Dispatch that if any one of her freelance columns was deemed unsuitable for publication, then the paper, which paid her on a per-column basis under an “at-will” arrangement, could simply refrain from running the column in question, but keep her on board. Yet she was let go after the April 28, 2017 column that sparked this controversy had already appeared in print.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Her column had challenged Missouri State University Journalism School professor (emeritus) George Kennedy, a regular guest columnist for the Columbia Missourian. He had claimed that the NRA was no better than ISIS, and that gun owners care more about their guns than their children. She wrote that Kennedy’s column was absurd, so the Post-Dispatch opinion editor Tod Robberson dropped her.

What was the reason Robberson cited for dropping her columns?

Ms. Washington’s unpardonable “sin” was that she allegedly failed to let Robberson know about her dastardly NRA affiliations. While attending the NRA’s annual conference in Atlanta, Ms. Washington saw an email from Robberson, in which he said that he was suspending her column. Referring to that April column, he claimed Ms. Washington was “advocating for the NRA while failing to disclose that you did media work on behalf of this lobbying organization and its official television station,” which “goes far beyond the bounds of any acceptable journalistic standard.”

He also alleged that she didn’t disclose that she served “multiple times” as a co-host and commentator on NRA-TV’s “Cam & Company.”

Liberty Stickers

In a follow-up article that appeared in the NRA journal 1st Freedom, Ms. Washington explained that, before the start of her column, and again in January of this year, articles describing her participation in an NRA documentary appeared in the Post-Dispatch.

Her biography and online social media accounts “all state that I am a fourth-generation veteran, gun owner, Second Amendment supporter, and NRA member,” Ms. Washington explained. “Besides, does my appearance as a guest host for ‘Cam & Company’ on a few occasions make the [professor’s] NRA-ISIS comparison valid?

Here are excerpts from the column, headlined “Guns and the Media,” that led to her suspension:

Missouri School of Journalism professor emeritus George Kennedy offered his opinion of gun-owning NRA members in a Columbia Missourian commentary [as follows]: “The NRA is the acronym for the National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, and feared by politicians across America.” Really. Tons of politicians cowering in fear of the NRA, eh?

Kennedy . . . describes the barbaric nature of the Islamic State and goes on to say of law abiding, gun-owning Americans: “What makes the NRA so feared is its willingness to spend heavily and campaign aggressively in pursuit of its goal of removing all restrictions on the possession and use of firearms just about anywhere by just about anyone.”

To further illustrate the ridiculous nature of Kennedy’s comparison, when has a member of the NRA ever decapitated, set on fire, tossed from a rooftop or otherwise terrorized another American? The association [of the NRA with reported ISIS actions] is not only rife with improper context; it is false on its face. Yet the Missourian saw fit to publish it without question.

In her 1st Freedom piece, Ms. Washington summarized, “Upon reading [Kennedy’s] assertion that ‘we love our guns more than we love our children,’ I was compelled to write about this spurious comparison and the obvious editorial malpractice that permitted the approval of such copy without so much as a rebuttal.”

As for the bigger picture, Ms. Washington—a black woman who, being conservative and pro-gun, doesn’t fit the “liberal PC” image that media often project in order to stereotype and divide people—sees great irony in the fact that traditional print media is constantly losing its readership but still omits or misrepresents conservative viewpoints, rather than winning over more readers with better editorial balance in order to stay in business.

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




Amish Healer Sentenced to Six Years in Prison

Following the FDA’s lengthy persecution of an Amish man in Kentucky, a judge has meted out an outrageous prison sentence for the herbal salve maker—despite the fact no victims were shown to have ever been harmed by his salves. Once again, pharmaceutical companies, as represented by the FDA, have won out over a peaceful citizen of  the United States.

By Jacob Tyler

LEXINGTON, Ky.—The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s decade-long persecution of an Amish man whose family enterprise specializes in the manufacture of home-made salves reached a disturbing conclusion on June 30 in the U.S. district court in Lexington, Ky., when he was sentenced to six years in prison for the crime of “mislabeling” and selling a natural remedy.

Samuel A. Girod, 57, was sentenced by Judge Danny Reeves to 72 months in prison to be followed by a supervised release period of three years, during which time he is prohibited from making and selling any product intended for medical purposes. Girod is also required to pay the court $14,000 in restitution and $1,300 in court fees, though the judge did not impose the potential fine of $25,000-$250,000 on the basis that doing so would impose undue hardship to the family.

The convoluted history of U.S. v. Girod traces back to 2001 when FDA agents first contacted Girod. After allegedly receiving an anonymous tip notifying them Girod’s product label asserted his topical tincture made from bloodroot was good for skin cancer, FDA agents informed Girod they considered this a medical claim that must be either irrefutably proven or altogether removed from his product label. Girod complied by amending the label.

IRS Loses Cases

In 2013, the FDA contacted Girod again, claiming a “victim” had been “harmed” by his salve.

However, during the investigation, no victim was produced and the salve in question was revealed to be from a different manufacturer. Still, Girod allowed FDA agents to conduct a warrantless search of his farm. A federal judge in Missouri then enjoined Girod’s products and ordered that no products could be sold until medical claims were removed, that Girod’s bloodroot salve could never be made available for sale, and that Girod must allow FDA inspections of his property for five years.

In late 2013, Girod refused an inspection and in 2014 began selling his products again, through a private members’ club.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The FDA began criminal proceedings against him for disobeying the injunction and added two more severe charges. FDA agents claimed that Girod and his family threatened them with physical violence when they returned for the second inspection, despite the fact that the sheriff’s deputy, who had accompanied FDA agents, testified under oath that no threats were made. Finally, Girod was also charged with witness tampering because he had sent a letter to customers explaining the facts of the lawsuit and apologizing for causing them distress.

Liberty Stickers

During a jury trial, which concluded in March, Girod was found guilty on 13 charges: conspiracy to impede an officer, obstruction of a proceeding before an agency, failing to register with the FDA, eight counts of causing misbranded drugs to be introduced into interstate commerce, tampering with a witness, and failure to appear.

It’s important to note that the FDA’s classification of “drugs” here is based solely upon its insistence that Girod’s brochure for his salve, which quoted a customer’s testimonial that the product treated skin cancer, constitutes a medical claim. Therefore, according to the FDA, this salve, which anyone can produce in their own kitchen following one of numerous recipes readily available online with ingredients readily available at a local grocery store, is a “drug.”

Reeves explained that the court calculates the offense level in part based on the number of victims, though throughout the entirety of the hearing, the court did not reference a single one.

The FDA has a long track record of granting its seal of approval to substances produced by big pharma that have been proven to harm victims by the thousands annually. Yet it would seem that going after an Amish family business that produces a natural product, which has harmed no proven victims, that has been tested in the FDA’s own laboratories, and subsequently vindicated as both safe and natural, is what this government bureaucracy deems to be where the taxpayer dollars that help pay its budget are most gainfully prioritized.

It’s no great wonder that this has caused a major outcry among concerned Americans. Girod’s sentencing hearing on June 30—during which numerous security personnel were present in the courtroom, a bomb-sniffing dog was on hand, and Homeland Security officers were stationed outside—was attended by over 120 Amish men, women, and children from numerous communities around the nation, dozens of activists, and numerous reporters for both local and alternative news outlets, filling the courtroom to capacity.

Perhaps the most recognizable face amidst the large number of supporters was former sheriff and Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association founder Richard Mack (pictured in the photograph above speaking to the crowd), who has 20 years’ experience in law enforcement and one year working in narcotics.

This writer interviewed Mack about the Girod proceedings.

According to Mack, the sentencing guidelines for Girod outlined by Reeves were absurdly in excess of those for crimes of equal severity committed by repeat offenders. He added that in all his years of experience in law enforcement he had never seen a first-time offender be sentenced in such a draconian fashion. What’s more, he pointed out, actual drug dealers often only get 5-10 years prison time when convicted.

Girod, who represented himself for the majority of his case, asserted his rights as a sovereign citizen at numerous points during the hearing, responding to every question directed at him by the court with the words: “I do not waive my immunity to this court. I do not consent.”

During sentencing, as if to refute the widespread cries of foul play from the public, Reeves claimed: “This is not about the government coming down on a man who just wants to sell salve. It’s about a man that has no respect for the rule of law.”

Reeves spoke of a prevailing need to “protect the public from any future crimes of the defendant.”

Conspicuously absent during the trial, however, was so much as a single example of an actual victim, past or present.

Also noteworthy was the candor of the prosecution. Two statements by federal prosecutor Kate Smith were particularly indicative of an overt agenda on which the FDA and the court were in painfully apparent collusion.

“He has not accepted responsibility for his actions,” she claimed, followed by, “The government has put a lot of money into this case and I would hate to see Mr. Girod released—and be back in here for the same thing.”

IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH

Supporters both inside the courtroom and assembled outside—some of whom carried signs and placards that read “Notice to Feds: Stop targeting our peaceful Amish neighbors”—gathered in front of the courthouse immediately afterward, as local news cameras rolled and activists livestreamed the gathering.

Mack’s vociferous denunciation of Reeves’s decision rang out in front of the news cameras. His bold words were met with equally exuberant applause and cries of “Amen!” from scores of the Amish present.

Mack called for intervention by officials like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Girod’s own senator. Having spearheaded numerous successful efforts to vindicate Amish people being targeted by the FDA thus far, Mack is also calling for both congressional and presidential commissions to investigate not just this, but all similar cases.

“This has nothing to do with safety,” said Mack. “The only crime committed here is that a family has been torn apart. . .. Every American has something to fear after this.”

When asked to comment on the sentencing outcome, Girod’s father told AFP, “The Constitution isn’t working anymore. This is all on the government.”

Another Amish community leader added: “It is a slap in the face to the Amish to send him to prison . . .. [Sheriff Mack said] that [Sam] is being lied about and railroaded. Sam did not have a fair trial. If he’d had an attorney he could have had a fair chance.”

The palpable spirit of righteous indignation evident in the gathered protestors was well summarized in the statements of Mrs. Sally Oh, who has covered the Girod case from its outset and writes for the Kentucky Free Press:

“There are no victims. Sam didn’t hurt anybody. The only victim here is the FDA, if you can even call them victims. The most egregious counts against him are based on common law: ‘Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.’ Sam did none of those things. This is a clear case of the FDA flexing its muscle and throwing its weight around.”

There is still a chance for the ruling against Girod to be appealed to the 6th Circuit. Considering that five lawyers have offered to take his case pro bono and numerous others at a reduced rate since his conviction, he may yet have an opportunity to turn this around. But whether or not Girod, who didn’t trust lawyers to begin with, can trust any representatives of a legal system that has so recently trampled his rights into the mud remains to be seen.

Jacob Tyler is a freelance writer and web designer.




AFP’s July 3 & 10 Edition Now Available Online For Free

Get a PDF copy of the latest issue of AMERICAN FREE PRESS for free by clicking here.

Even better, get access to AFP Online all year long for only $15 with an archive that goes back to AFP’s issues published in 2006, by clicking here.

No credit cards. Paypal only!




This Week’s Edition of American Free Press Now Online

Get the latest issue of AMERICAN FREE PRESS by clicking here, or, even better, get access to AFP Online all year long for only $15 with an archive that goes back to AFP’s issues published in 2006, by clicking here.




Latest Edition Now Available Online

Click on the image below to subscribe to AFP’s online editions.

Already a subscriber? Click here to log in to read the latest issue, AFP’s March 27 & April 3 edition.