Raising Red Flags About Red Flag Laws

Who will decide if a gunowner is a threat, and can we trust the decision?

By Mark Anderson

It’s pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that the ruling elite want more stringent gun confiscation laws enacted. One proposed way to do this is via the institution of “red flag” laws. Red flag laws are allegedly designed to prevent future mass shootings as they empower courts to take guns away from “potentially dangerous” people, as if we can actually trust the courts to be impartial arbiters in this matter. We wish we could.

Red flag laws have already been put in place in 17 states, of which 12 enacted them after the Parkland, Fla. school shooting in February 2018. Four other states have proposed such laws. For the record, the two states in which high-profile multiple shootings recently took place—at an El Paso, Texas Walmart and a Dayton, Ohio entertainment venue—do not yet have red flag laws on the books, though Ohio had already proposed such a law.

National Coin Investments

On the federal level, at a March 26 congressional committee hearing entitled “Red Flag Laws: Examining Guidelines for State Action,” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) noted:

While Republicans and Democrats, on this Committee and across America, can disagree on the Second Amendment, what’s clear . . . is that recent tragedies in the United States are examples of . . . a failure to identify and lessen risk from individuals who may be showing signs of distress and the willingness to hurt themselves or others. … The use of Extreme Risk Protection Orders also known as “Red flag” orders have shown promise in the states.

… Red flag laws generally work by a family or household member or law enforcement officer petitioning a court to temporarily restrict an individual’s ability to buy or access fire – arms. The burden of proof is placed on law enforcement to prove the person in question has become an imminent danger and there is a Due Process right for the individual to challenge the determination. . . . Politically, these laws are found in red, blue, and purple states. In March 2018, the Trump Administration called on every state to enact Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

The potential for President Trump to bend to media-induced pressure, perhaps to protect himself politically as the 2020 election nears, is high given the tense and uncertain climate created by news of the latest shootings.


The key to understanding the potential problems with red flag laws is realizing that such laws could easily morph into large-scale disarmament of law-abiding civilians based upon their political philosophy. Indeed, confiscations could become ever more frequent. Not just family members and police,  but also neighbors, acquaintances, and coworkers, possibly with an axe to grind, could conjure up reports of your “suspicious” or “errant” behavior, leading to firearms confiscation pending a review of your “mental stability.”

In Connecticut, the justifications for gun confiscation have included such simple concerns as “conflict between intimate partners, emotional distress over finances, and sadness of loss in old age,” as reported Feb. 25 in The Denver Post.

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

Interestingly, the Post, citing the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012, added: “Connecticut law enforcement had been temporarily taking weapons from at-risk people for more than a decade at the time of the shooting. According to the Duke University study, about 140 orders were issued in 2012.”

But Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old responsible for that elementary school massacre, wasn’t the registered owner of the guns he used to commit murder. Investigative reports insist he used his mother’s guns to kill her at home and 26 children and adults at the elementary school.

Another more troubling aspect of the situation is that mainstream controlled media reports on mass shootings are not based in reality. They invariably portray the shooter as a trigger-happy “white supremacist,” despite any real facts to support that contention. Thus, the first segment of the population to be disarmed—due to fake news-induced media hysteria—would most likely be white nationalists, just the very people who are most resistant to the expansion of the New World Order police state. Coincidence? Probably not.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. Email him at <[email protected]

Tulsi Gabbard Sues Google

Anti-war candidate Tulsi Gabbard and educational outfit PragerU say tech giant Google is a threat to democracy.

By S.T. Patrick

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is suing Internet company Google for its increased ideological censorship. After the first Democratic Party debate aired on NBC, Gabbard was the most searched-for candidate on Google. At a time when interest in her decidedly anti-war campaign peaked, the tech goliath blocked her Google Ads account. Gabbard also charged that Google sent her campaign emails to Gmail spam folders at a “disproportionately high rate.”

The Gabbard campaign is seeking a legal injunction against Google so that the world’s largest search engine can no longer meddle in the 2020 elections, presidential or otherwise. The campaign is also seeking $50 million in damages. As stated in Gabbard’s legal complaint against Google, “For hours, as millions of Americans searched Google for information about Tulsi, and as Tulsi was trying, through Google, to speak to them, her Google Ads account was arbitrarily and forcibly taken offline. Throughout this period, the campaign worked frantically to gather more information about the suspension, to get through to someone at Google who could get the account back online, and to understand and remedy the restraint that had been placed on Tulsi’s speech—at precisely the moment when everyone wanted to hear from her.”

Free Expression Foundation

Google controls 88% of the Internet searches in the U.S., which means essentially that American access to information online goes through Google. Gabbard sees the dangers for U.S. elections if Google continues its censorship.

“Google’s discrimination against our campaign reveals the danger of their dominance and how the dominance of big tech over public discourse threatens core American values,” Gabbard tweeted on July 25. “They threaten our democracy.”

Google responded shortly thereafter, not surprisingly stating that there is no bias—political, ideological, or otherwise—in their decisions.

“In this case, our system triggered a suspension and the account was reinstated shortly thereafter,” said Google spokeswoman Riva Sciuto. “We are proud to offer ad products that help campaigns connect directly with voters, and we do so without bias toward any party or political ideology.”

National Coin Investments

There are other organizations that would vehemently disagree with Sciuto and agree with Gabbard. In 2018, rogue Google employees contacted the conservative “Breitbart” news to inform them that there was a culture within Google that was actively working against Breitbart’s Google Ads monetization plan. Leftist employees at Google had sent management an open letter stating that “Googlers hold a diverse set of political, social, and economic perspectives, but respect and openness bind us together. The hate and bullying Breitbart incites toward Muslims, LGBTQ people, and women is incompatible with those shared values.”

PragerU is a conservative educational video company created by Dennis Prager. It is now also suing Google and YouTube for censorship of its educational material. The suit cites over 50 videos that have been either demonetized or restricted by Google, which owns YouTube. The restricted or demonetized videos include “Why America Must Lead,” “The Ten Commandments: Do Not Murder,” “Why Did America Fight the Korean War?” and “The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: Christians.”

When PragerU inquired to Google and YouTube about the censorship, they were told that the videos had been restricted because they were deemed “inappropriate” for younger audiences. PragerU’s founder disagrees.

Biggest scam Stansberry“Watch any one of our videos and you’ll immediately realize that Google/YouTube censorship is entirely ideologically driven,” stated Dennis Prager. “For the record, our videos are presented by some of the finest minds in the Western world, including four Pulitzer Prize winners, former prime ministers, and professors from the most prestigious universities in America.”

YouTube currently has 1.3 billion users worldwide. Restricting access to material on YouTube is restricting free speech globally.

YouTube has long been censoring alternative voices. Podcast hosts Brent Holland and Ed Opperman have both been demonetized down to a near-inoperable status, crippling their shows.

The censoring of Gabbard is new in that it is not usually Democrats or any left-leaning entities that are censored by Google. But Gabbard is a different kind of candidate than the rest of the field. She is the only candidate in the debates who is challenging the perpetual war state and the mainstream media lies on foreign policy. She has gone against the grain on the issues of war and peace, and now she is suing the largest gatekeeper in the world.

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] He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication available from the AFP Online Store.

Who Is Exploiting Tragedy for Political Gain?

Pat Buchanan contrasts solemn coverage of the recent El Paso and Dayton shootings with another type of reaction: “For the Democratic presidential candidates, the El Paso atrocity was like a loose football in the Super Bowl.”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

It was two days of contrast that tell us about America 2019. In El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, following the mass murders of Saturday and Sunday morning, the local folks on camera—police, prosecutors, mayors, FBI, and city officials—were nonpartisan, patient, polite, and dignified in the unity and solemnity of their grief for their dead and wounded. But for the Democratic presidential candidates, the El Paso atrocity was like a loose football in the Super Bowl.

America's next big bankruptcy, StansberryA mad scramble broke out over who would be first and most savage in indicting President Donald Trump for moral complicity in mass murder. Never let a crisis go to waste is an old political adage. And this crowd of candidates was not going to let that happen. Yet the naked political exploitation of these horrific acts, before the bodies of many had been removed from the crime scene, was appalling to behold.

Learning in Las Vegas of the slaughter at the Walmart in El Paso, his hometown, Beto O’Rourke flew back that same day and sped to the scene. Railed Beto, Trump “is a racist and he stokes racism in this country … and it leads to violence. … We have a president with white nationalist views in the United States today.” He called Trump’s language about Mexican immigrants “reminiscent of something you might hear in the Third Reich.”

Asked on Sunday by CNN’s Jake Tapper if he believes the president is a “white nationalist,” Beto eagerly assented: “Yes, I do.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), asked by Tapper if he agreed with Beto, replied: “I do. It gives me no pleasure to say this … all of the evidence out there suggests that we have a president who is a racist, who is a xenophobe, who appeals, and is trying to appeal, to white nationalism.”

On the same CNN show, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) almost outdid Beto. “I want to say with more moral clarity that Donald Trump is responsible for this [mass murder in El Paso] because he is stoking fear and hatred and bigotry.”

Kingdom Identity

Booker went on: “We have a president of the United States who is savagely fraying the bonds of our nation by speaking consistently words of hatred, words of division, words of demonization and demagoguery. … He is fueling an environment where white supremacists … are finding more and more license to strike out against the vulnerable, to strike out against the immigrant, to strike out against ‘the other.’ ” Booker is saying Trump is rendering moral license to race conflict.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) issued a statement: “We need to call out white nationalism for what it is—domestic terrorism. It is a threat to the United States, and we’ve seen its devastating toll this weekend. And we need to call out the president himself for advancing racism and white supremacy.”

Ironically, The Washington Times reports that the Dayton shooter, who killed his sister and eight others, “described himself on social media as a pro-Satan ‘leftist,’ who wanted Joe Biden’s generation to die off, hated Trump, and hoped to vote for Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president.”

“I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding,” Connor Betts, the killer, reportedly tweeted.

Subscribe to America's last real newspaper

Not to be left behind, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said of the president after the slaughter, he’s “a racist, there’s no question in my mind.” These attacks, unprecedented in their savagery, testify to a hatred of Trump that is broad, deep and implacable, and unlikely to be constrained before November 2020. Folks still speak wistfully of a return to the unity America once knew and of a coming together to stand again on common ground.

But where is the evidence for that hope? If Trump’s fabled base is going to stand loyally by him, and the Democratic candidates are going to unleash this kind of bile against him, whoever wins in 2020 will not be able to unite us. Clearly the issue in the 2020 campaign will be Trump.

Buchanan, Death of the West
The national bestseller that shocked the nation from Pat Buchanan, available now at the AFP Online Store.

Is impeachment now back on the table? How can it not be? Though Robert Mueller found no collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russians, support for impeachment hearings passed the midway mark inside the Democratic caucus in the House last week, even before the horrible weekend.

And if Democrats believe about Trump what their candidates say about him—that he is a white nationalist racist and xenophobe deliberately stoking fear, hatred, and violence, whose words and actions call to mind the fascist regimes of WWII—how can the Democratic leadership credibly not try to impeach him?

Yet, blaming the massacre in El Paso on the rhetoric of Trump is a charge that can come back to bite his attackers. Neither the right nor left has a monopoly on political extremism or violence. And the hate-filled rhetoric of the left this last weekend exceeds anything used by Trump.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.

Smeared Teenager Loses in Court

Young Nicholas Sandmann, the Catholic student from Kentucky who became the target of a nationwide smear campaign thanks to the fake-news-media, has now been the victim of ajudge’s politically motivated decision. He will appeal.

By Donald Jeffries

William Bertelsman, an elderly federal judge in Kentucky, nominated to the bench by President Jimmy Carter, dismissed beleaguered Catholic teenager Nicholas Sandmann’s $250 million lawsuit against The Washington Post in late July. Incredibly, the judge ruled that the Post’s First Amendment rights allowed it to publish the opinion of Native American “elder” Nathan Phillips, whose fanciful account of the incident outside Washington, D.C.’s Lincoln Memorial earlier this year helped portray Sandmann and his fellow students as entitled, disrespectful beneficiaries of “white privilege.”

The fact that the full video of the incident revealed Phillips to have completely distorted the events, and that it exposed the real instigators as a group of vile, racist Black Hebrew Israelites, evidently held no importance to Bertelsman.

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

“The Court accepts Sandmann’s statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Philips his intent was to calm the situation and not to impede or block anyone,” Bertelsman wrote in his opinion. “However, Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being ‘blocked’ and not allowed to ‘retreat.’ He passed these conclusions on to the Post. They may have been erroneous, but . . . they are opinion protected by the First Amendment.

And the Post is not liable for publishing these opinions, for the reasons discussed in this Opinion.” So, in the words of this powerful judge, accuracy is of no significance in news reporting, even if inaccurate reporting results in reputations being damaged.

Bertelsman is clearly not averse to individuals suing media outlets over unfair reporting. In 2009, NFL cheerleader Sarah Jones filed suit against the website “thedirty.com,” claiming that it had published malicious gossip depicting her as promiscuous and alleging that she’d even transmitted venereal diseases to others. The website owners, like the Post, moved to dismiss the case, arguing reasonably that it had immunity from material authored by third-party, often anonymous sources. In this case, Bertelsman didn’t dismiss, but allowed the suit to go forward.


An interesting comparison arises here. The same judge who ruled an NFL cheerleader had possibly been defamed by anonymous posters on an Internet site dismissed a lawsuit from an underage high-school student who had been openly mocked, threatened, and clearly cast into a “bad guy” role that wasn’t in line with the facts. The difference, of course, is that the defendant in Sandmann’s first suit was one of the most powerful organs in the state-controlled mainstream media.

In Sandmann’s case, triggered members of the public attempted to contact his prospective colleges and demand they not accept his application, and there were countless violent memes all over social media, laughingly suggesting he be punched in the face. Meanwhile, there was no such saturation coverage of “Elder” Phillips when it was discovered that he hadn’t served in Vietnam, as he claimed repeatedly in early interviews, that he had a violent criminal record, and that he possessed an obvious anti-Catholic bias, as only a short time before the incident with the Covington teens he had attempted to lead protesters into disrupting mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

Justice on Trial
Now at the AFP Store: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court

Lost in all the defamatory, misleading news coverage of the event was the fact that Sandmann and his classmates were on a simple field trip to attend a March for Life event in the nation’s capital. As a result of the heavy, biased coverage, even their own faculty at Covington High School, as well as the Catholic Diocese of Covington, originally blamed and condemned the students.

Sandmann’s attorneys had initially asked for an apology and retraction from the Post and other outlets like CNN and CBS, against whom lawsuits remain to be heard. The Post hardly sounded contrite when it published a statement reading, in part, “subsequent reporting, a student’s statement, and additional video allow for a more complete assessment of what occurred, either contradicting or failing to confirm accounts provided in that [January 18] story.” There would be no apology or retraction.

This author exchanged emails with one of Sandmann’s attorneys last week. Asked for his impressions of this rather surprising opinion, Todd McMurtry replied: “Yes, it was disappointing to lose the initial case. We all think the court’s opinion is flawed and that we have a strong shot to turn this around on appeal. We will see.”

Another of Sandmann’s attorneys, Lin Wood, reacted to the outrageous decision in a tweet: “If you wonder how and why our public discourse has deteriorated to its present level, look no further than the order issued in Nicholas’s defamation case against WaPo protecting negligent publication of false and vicious accusations against a minor child. The order must be reversed.

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 three books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.

DHS Implements New Asylum Rules

Under new rules put in place by the Department of Homeland Security, asylum seekers must come directly from the nations they are fleeing.

By John Friend

In an effort to combat the widespread use of fraudulent asylum claims by migrants hoping to gain entry to the United States, the Trump administration announced new guidelines earlier this month that make it more difficult for Third World migrants to claim asylum.

According to the new rules, those seeking asylum in the United States will be deemed ineligible if they passed through another country before reaching a port of entry to the United States, with some limited exceptions. The vast majority of current asylum seekers make their way through Mexico and other Central American nations before attempting to apply for asylum in the United States. Many such cases are marred by fraudulent claims, including fraudulent familial ties, fraudulent immigration documents, and fraudulent persecution claims.

America's next big bankruptcy, StansberryThe Departments of Homeland Security and Justice announced the new rule in a joint statement earlier this month, which was then published in the Federal Register.

“The departments are amending their respective regulations to provide that, with limited exceptions, an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum,” the new rule states, as reported by The Hill, a popular and oft-quoted publication focusing on political developments in Washington, D.C.

The new rule is necessary, according to Trump administration officials, due to the increasing number of asylum applicants and floods of migrants attempting to gain entry to the United States. Ports of entry and immigration officers have been overwhelmed in recent months by the sheer number of migrants and asylum seekers, including countless cases involving vulnerable populations, including young adults and children. Immigration officials and border patrol agents are operating in extremely difficult environments, particularly as fraudulent asylum claims skyrocket and opportunistic and dishonest migrants desperately attempt to illegally enter the country.

National Coin Investments

“The United States is a generous country but is being completely overwhelmed by the burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of aliens along the southern border,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement following the announcement of the new asylum rule. “This rule will decrease forum shopping by economic migrants and those who seek to exploit our asylum system to obtain entry to the United States—while ensuring that no one is removed from the United States who is more likely than not to be tortured or persecuted on account of a protected ground.”

The new rule comes as President Trump has been criticized by immigration hawks who contend his administration has not done enough to protect the country’s borders and fulfill his signature campaign promises, including building a wall along the southern border. A recent report published by the Washington Examiner argues that no new border wall or fence has been built under the Trump administration, a claim the president has criticized and denied on Twitter.

Buchanan, Death of the West
The national bestseller that shocked the nation from Pat Buchanan, available now at the AFP Online Store.

Since entering the White House, the Trump administration has been stymied and obstructed by both Congress and various activist judges from implementing many key aspects of his populist immigration agenda. Leading Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many of the top Democratic presidential contenders, proudly support open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration.

Matthew Albence, President Trump’s acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, recently criticized members of Congress for openly assisting illegal immigrants to evade U.S. immigration law.

“There were people in Congress sitting there giving instructions to people illegally in the country and telling them how to avoid detection and avoid the consequences of their illegal activity,” Albence told reporters recently.

The Trump administration no doubt will continue to face obstacles from Congress, the judiciary, the fake news media, and radical left-wing activist groups as it attempts to deal with the ongoing immigration crisis.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

America-Firsters Gather

By Donald Jeffries

Mainstream media coverage would lead one to believe that those who support Donald Trump are uneducated rubes. The picture painted is that of cursing, racist white males, MAGA hats proudly displayed, watching NASCAR as they knock back mass quantities of cheap beer. There has emerged, however, an intellectual movement that shatters this stereotype.

A group of “national conservatives,” consisting of academics, journalists, and politicians prominent on the right, recently gathered in Washington, D.C.’s Ritz-Carlton hotel. Yoram Hazony, author of the book The Virtue of Nationalism and an organizer of the conference, dubbed the event “the coming together of diverse bands of conservatives.” The group included a full spectrum of conservative thought, with venture capitalists, Calvin Coolidge fans, libertarians and isolationists among those represented. A common thread was the belief that this country’s institutions and form of government remain “the most logical vessel for political organization known to man,” to quote National Review.

National Coin Investments

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, whose drift toward populism evokes comparisons to Pat Buchanan, was a keynote speaker. His comment, “The main threat to your ability to live your life as you choose does not come from the government anymore, but it comes from the private sector,” received rousing applause. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) railed against what he termed a “cosmopolitan consensus” that places unquestioning faith in our marketplace. This brought back memories of Trump’s frequent campaign rhetoric about the “rigged system.”

Mainstream criticism of the event, and of national conservativism in general, came from outlets like the Niskanan Center, a group that openly states that its “main audience is Washington insiders,” and online news and opinion site “The Bulwark,” which was co-founded by warmongering neocon William Kristol. “The Bulwark” warned that such gatherings were likely to lend “respectability to nationalism’s poisonous side.” Presumably, these organizations were not comforted by the presence at the event of war hawk extraordinaire John Bolton, currently national security adviser to Trump.

National conservatism originated in Europe and Asia, as a movement concentrating on upholding national and cultural identity. It is widely believed to have influenced the successful Brexit movement in Great Britain. In America, it is considered a direct repudiation to the rugged, Ayn Rand-inspired market fundamentalism of the Paul Ryan and Scott Walker-type Republicans; concerned with not merely the lack of cohesion in American society, but the increasingly bitter cultural divide that could potentially erupt into a second Civil War. Stressing national identity, Hazony explained, “You can’t have cohesion over nothing. You have to have cohesion over something shared.” Open borders and political correctness on steroids guarantee that there can be no common purpose or shared values within the U.S. population. Issues like transgender bathrooms and after-birth abortion would be extremely polarizing in any culture.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Establishment opposition to the concept of national unity was clearly expressed by the Intelligencer: “Put simply, national conservatism’s day has come too late. Their movement’s leading thinkers and social base do not want social cohesion for its own sake—they want it on white traditionalist America’s own terms. Tucker Carlson and his audience aren’t interested in reviving the civic nationalism of Barack Obama but rather in restoring social conservatism’s long-forfeited cultural supremacy. And in the 21st-century United States, that latter mission is incompatible with promoting national unity.” As the article noted, during the postwar boom, when the American economy was at its peak, 80% of the population were white Christians. That number has dropped precipitously to 43%. Considering the nonwhite, non-Christian nature of most of American immigration now, and the decline of religion in everyday American life, that number is sure to drop even lower.

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

Sen. Hawley has become national conservatism’s most passionate proponent on Capitol Hill and bemoans America’s descent into “faction.” As Hawley stated in his opening speech to the conference, “The great divide of our time is not between Trump supporters and Trump opponents, or between suburban voters and rural ones, or between Red America and Blue America. No, the great divide of our time is between the political agenda of the leadership elite and the great and broad middle of our society. And to answer the discontent of our time, we must end that divide. We must forge a new consensus.”

As National Review put it, “NatCon opposition to ethnicity-based identity politics rejects obvious white nationalism while tacitly endorsing some instances of divisive nativist rhetoric, and that the movement seeks to displace, as Hazony said, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, and classical liberalism.”

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 AFP BOOKSTORE.

Police Foil Domestic Terror Plot

A neo-Bolshevik antifa militant, armed with a rifle,  has been killed by police killed while throwing firebombs and incendiary devices at a building and vehicles, trying to storm an immigration center.

By John Friend

A longtime antifa activist was killed by Tacoma, Wash. police on July 13 after the radical left-wing extremist attacked a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in the early morning hours in an act that demonstrates once again the threat the radical left poses to America.

According to the Tacoma Police Department, the antifa extremist, later identified as Willem Van Spronsen, threw firebombs and incendiary devices at both the facility and vehicles parked at the facility, resulting in one car being set on fire before police responded at roughly 4:00 a.m. Van Spronsen, who was armed with a rifle at the time, was shot and killed by police shortly after they arrived on scene.

“He was throwing these items at the building in an effort to set it on fire,” Officer Loretta Cool of the Tacoma Police Department told reporters following the incident. “It didn’t work; it’s a concrete building.”

America's next big bankruptcy, StansberryVan Spronsen, long affiliated with the radical left and antifa groups in the Pacific Northwest, was arrested about one year ago for assaulting a police officer at the same detention facility he would later attack with incendiary devices. The Northwest Detention Center has been the site of numerous left-wing protests in recent years, some of which have turned ugly.

According to court documents, Van Spronsen jumped on the back of a police officer who was attempting to detain a protester at the facility at one such protest last year. Detectives found a knife and baton on Van Spronsen after he was arrested.

Van Spronsen allegedly penned a brief manifesto before attacking the ICE detention facility in which he openly identified as a member of antifa and described the detention facility as a “concentration camp,” a loaded term that invokes memories of Jews who were incarcerated during WWII, which has been used by other radical leftists, including the firebrand New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“This is my clear opportunity to try to make a difference. I’d be an ingrate to be waiting for a more obvious invitation,” Van Spronsen wrote in part. In the manifesto, he described the United States as a fascist country and cited John Brown and Emma Goldman—two radical left-wing figures in American history—as his moral and political guides.

Subscribe to America's last real newspaperUnsurprisingly, certain members of antifa and other radical leftists sympathized with Van Spronsen, and many leading Democrats failed to denounce his violent actions. Even many Republicans, including President Trump, failed to comment on this blatant act of left-wing violence and terrorism.

“RIP to anarchist fighter Willem Van Spronsen,” an antifa member tweeted following the incident. “The attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma is a proportionate action against enslavers and internment camp operators. He joins a long list of fallen anarchist martyrs who fought for a liberated world!”

Van Spronsen’s violent assault on the ICE detention facility comes as other radical left-wing protesters engage in civil disobedience and protests at various immigration facilities and detention centers across the nation.

Never Again Action, a group of radical left-wing Jewish activists, has vowed to shut down ICE and other immigration offices with disruptive protests and other actions at various buildings and facilities responsible for enforcing America’s immigration laws. Earlier this month, the group marched on the headquarters of ICE in Washington, D.C., which led to the arrest of some of the protesters. The group later boasted that it had “disrupted things so thoroughly” that ICE “locked down the entire building and didn’t reopen until we left.”

“As Jews, we know from our own history what happens when a government targets, dehumanizes, and strips an entire group of people of all their civil and human rights,” Hannah Klein, an organizer with Never Again Action, stated. “We refuse to wait and see what happens next.”

Hate Crime Hoax
How the Left is selling a FAKE race war, now at AFP’s Online Store

The group, along with countless other immigrant advocacy groups, has protested at ICE facilities across the country in recent weeks, often in an extreme and lawless manner.

For example, a band of radical activists in Aurora, Colo. recently pulled down the American flag at an ICE detention facility in that city, attempted to burn it, and then raised the Mexican flag in its place, demonstrating the radical left’s blatant disregard for the law and American traditions. Additionally, a group of activists helped prevent ICE officers from apprehending an alleged illegal immigrant and his son in Nashville, Tenn. recently when they formed a human chain around the suspect’s van after he was pulled over by ICE agents.

As antifa and the rest of the radical left continue to show their true colors and demonstrate their violent, anti-American nature, the immigration crisis along the southern border continues unabated. It is long past time law and order is restored in this country, particularly in light of even more examples of the radical left flagrantly violating the law and disrespecting the country.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Free Speech Triumph

Front-page news in AFP’s Issue 33&34, mailed to print subscribers last week and online now for digital subscribers to read: Judge rules man fired for beliefs had rights violated.

By John Friend

A former Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division (MLGW) employee won an important lawsuit earlier this summer when U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla ruled the man had his constitutionally protected rights to free speech and equal protection under the law violated when he was forced out of his job as a result of holding politically incorrect political views.

Michael Goza, who had worked as a customer service field technician for the local Memphis public utility, filed a lawsuit against his former employer in December 2017 after initially being suspended by MLGW for statements he made on Facebook and participating in a rally protesting the removal of Confederate memorials in downtown Memphis earlier that summer.

While attending the rally, Goza spoke to local media outlets explaining his reasoning for participating, and was later identified by members of the public as an MLGW employee. The public utility then suspended Goza while an investigation was launched, and he was subsequently offered an ultimatum: Assume a new role with the public utility that offered less pay and no field contact with African-American customers of the public utility, or be fired from his job. Goza refused the utility’s offer and was immediately fired.

National Coin Investments

In his lawsuit, Goza argued that his First Amendment rights to free speech were violated by the public utility, and that his termination was retaliatory in nature. Black employees of the utility engaged in similar constitutionally protected expressions of free speech, yet they were not punished or terminated from their jobs, according to Goza. According to local reports, a black employee of MLGW had previously advocated on social media killing Asian- Americans, which eventually came to the attention of the public utility. The black employee was merely suspended for three days rather than being demoted or potentially terminated, as was the case with Goza.

The judge ruled in Goza’s favor, agreeing with his arguments that he was treated unfairly by the public utility and that his First Amendment rights were violated.

“The government does not have to turn a blind eye to the speech of its employees, but MLGW’s decisions in this case were based on unconstitutional factors,” Judge McCalla argued in his ruling decision, which was handed down earlier this summer. The judge also noted that Goza’s participation in a pro-Confederate monument rally was done as a private citizen rather than as a public employee, noting that “Goza was speaking as a private citizen and on matters of public concern.”

While attending the rally, Goza spoke to The Commercial Appeal, a local Memphis news outlet. “What I’m tired of is being portrayed as KKK or a white supremacist simply because I’m a white guy who wants to preserve my heritage,” Goza said at the time, according to the lawsuit.

“Some of Goza’s statements may have been insensitive, offensive, and even bigoted, but they were protected by the Constitution nonetheless,” Judge McCalla wrote. “MLGW thus violated Goza’s First Amendment rights when it demoted and fired him.”

Kingdom Identity

According to the Daily Memphian, MLGW must pay Goza roughly $160,000 in back pay and benefits, and an additional $30,000 in compensatory damages. The public utility must also rehire Goza.

“We’re really happy with the result,” Bryce Ashby, one of Goza’s lawyers, stated shortly after the ruling was released. “We put MLGW on notice early on that we thought this was a First Amendment violation. And we’re pleased that the court saw it our way.”

Goza’s successful case is a breath of fresh air to millions of Americans across the country concerned about the stifling impact of political correctness and extreme anti-white bigotry that is so prevalent in society today.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Race-Baiting Face of the New Left

The quartet of blatantly anti-American legislators recently in the news are more racist than Trump could ever be.

By Donald Jeffries

The July spat between Donald Trump and four highly visible new members of Congress illustrates again the tremendous culture divide in America. The quartet, dubbed “the Squad” by its most publicized member, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (christened AOC by a fawning media), has clearly taken over from the old-guard liberals who ran the Democrats in recent years. This was drummed home when both former Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) were called “racist” by this collection of supposed “progressives.”

The other “stars” of this quartet are Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts. Both AOC and Tlaib are members of the Democratic Socialists of America. All four have made numerous incendiary comments against white people in general. In July, a representative from Tlaib’s office told a contributor for conservative activist Laura Loomer that they approved of the discriminatory pricing at a festival in her area called Afroculture, which charged white attendees double the admission fee. Their explanation was, “It’s not racist if you’re not a protected minority group.” When Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) brought a black Trump administration official to a hearing, Tlaib termed it “racist in itself” and called the woman a “prop.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Tlaib, who notably referred to Donald Trump with what is generally considered the most vulgar term in the lexicon of profanity, in the presence of her young son, has predictably responded to her critics as “racist idiots.” Unlike most notable conservatives caught in a backlash over supposedly racist comments, Tlaib stood strong, tweeting, “I will always speak truth to power. #unapologeticallyMe.” She has said her constituents are “used to my realness,” and contends that “women have every right to curse in public.”

Pressley, not to be outdone on the race-obsessed front, declared that “Democrats don’t need more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice.” She went on to say that they, together with “brown faces,” need to “shake that table.” Pressley also chided Trump aide Kellyanne Conway with the obscure term “Becky,” which apparently is used derogatorily among younger people against white females. Pressley refuses to even call Trump “president,” referring to him merely as “the Occupant.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s anti-white comments are generally more quirky and ridiculous. She offered that growing cauliflower in nonwhite neighborhoods amounted to the kind of “colonialism” that her Green New Deal would change, as such plants are not “culturally familiar” to those communities. She has claimed that the U.S. government’s handling of terrorism cases is “racist,” and that “white men” get away with the same crimes.

Omar’s comments have tended to be more specifically directed at the U.S.’s unquestioned support of Israel. She has expressed an inferred support for terrorist groups, joking that people say “al Qaeda” in a severe tone, while no one says “America” in such a way. The fact that this comment came from an American congressional representative was not lost on conservatives and culminated in Trump’s controversial admonition that “the Squad” could “go back to where you came from” if they didn’t like it in this country. Trump was soundly blasted by the usual suspects, as it was pointed out that three of the four were born in America, and Omar arrived as a young child and is an American citizen.

National Coin Investments

In America 2.0, one supposes, it may soon be possible to serve in Congress without even being a citizen given the recent push in liberal states like California and Maryland to allow illegal aliens to vote in national and local elections.

Trump has been called every name in the book by high-profile members of the opposition political party. Most of those names have been racist in nature and directed at him specifically for his perceived racism. His “go back” comments were widely condemned, but a large portion of Americans, fed up with political correctness and intimations of a “white privilege” that in reality only exists for those with wealth, silently (or not so silently) cheered him on. Moreover, Trump was only addressing their nationality. He never said a word about their race.

The absurdity of having “representatives” clearly expressing their displeasure with the constitutional structure they are sworn to uphold exemplifies the madness that is present-day America. Trump would have been more effective if he’d made this undeniable point. These “new” Democrats believe that America and its institutions have always been “racist.” They wear their non-whiteness on their sleeves and everything about them is filtered through that. This is the cancerous essence of identity politics.

With the ongoing importation of largely nonwhite people who will be receptive to this anti-white message, the perspective of “the Squad” and their supporters may have the winning edge in future elections.

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 three books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.

Sideshow Bob’s Folly

Charges of Russia-Trump collusion go up in smoke as the sideshow ends without a bang

By S.T. Patrick

The Russians are coming! And they’re coming for Russiagate special prosecutor Robert “Sideshow Bob” Mueller. As journalist Daniel Lazare opened his newest article, “Don’t look now, but a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has just shut down half of Mueller’s Russian-interference case.”  

In February 2018, Mueller and his team indicted the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian company, its owner Yevgeniy Prigozhin, and 12 IRA employees. The charges leveled against them were entering the U.S. under false pretenses to use social media platforms in an effort to “sow discord” and “interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation.” If the crux of the Russiagate tale was going to be true, these were the perpetrators, and getting them was vital to Mueller’s credibility as the special prosecutor.  


Mueller’s report accused Prigozhin of having “ties to President Vladimir Putin,” controlling a Russian entity that pushed Donald Trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton, and partaking in “active measures,” an intelligence term that “refers to operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing the course of international affairs.” Because a Russian business is successful, and because its corporate leader has generally stated but never specified “ties” to Putin, the company must be an agent of the Russian government and its intelligence agency, the FSB. Of course, neither Mueller nor the American mainstream media would claim that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg or Amazon and Jeff Bezos were agents of the American government and the CIA because they have caroused with high-level American politicians, or, as in the case of Amazon, does business with the federal government.  

In a recent turn of events, Judge Dabney Friedrich ordered Mueller to stop pushing claims that Prigozhin and the IRA turned the entire 2016 U.S. election in their favor by using Facebook ads to make people vote for Trump. Friedrich ordered Mueller to stymie the allegations because they unfairly prejudice Concord Management and Consulting, another company owned by Prigozhin. 

Mueller, then, is hurting Concord by proxy by going after the IRA. 

In May 2018, Concord did something that Mueller was never expecting. Rather than run scared from a tough American prosecutor, the former head of the FBI, never to be seen on American soil again, Concord instead hired Reed Smith, an expensive D.C. law firm, and demanded their own day in court. Concord didn’t have to do this; they were beyond the reach of U.S. law, and Mueller was knowingly engaging in a war for public relations that would never be decided in court. Then Prigozhin legally told Mueller to “put up or shut up.” Friedrich gave Mueller only one option, the latter.   

National Coin Investments

Mueller only has two poles on which he can wrap his 2016 election theory: one New York Times article stating that Prigozhin is close to Putin and the claim that it was Russia that stole 28,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee and gave them to WikiLeaks. The former was just nixed by the federal judge, while Julian Assange, himself, has repeatedly killed the Russia-to-WikiLeaks email theories. After years of digging at a well and hoping that up from the ground would come a-bubblin’ crude, Mueller’s folly is bone dry.

Democrats paraded their new favorite son before the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees hoping to jot down a long list of reasons to impeach Trump. Instead, they ended up embarrassing Mueller into quite a number of refusals to comment. In fact, many online commentators wondered if Mueller is losing it mentally or if he was feigning memory loss so he wouldn’t have to answer sensitive questions that might reveal severe anti-Trump bias on the part of his investigators.  

In other incriminatingly bad news for Mueller and his report, the smoking gun that was the Trump Tower meeting with a Russian attorney now has no bullets. On June 9, 2016, attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort at Trump Tower. For Democrats, Never Trumpers, oligarchs, and Deep State operators, this was to be Collusion Central, the meeting that proved the Trump-Putin plot to rob Clinton of her rightful place in the Oval Office.  

After the report was released and the collusion theory was dead, Mueller moved to “obstruction of justice,” which investigative reporter Lucy Komisar compares to “someone being apprehended for resisting arrest without committing any other crime.”  

Crimes & Coverups, Jeffries
New at the AFP Online Store, from Donald Jeffries.

Veselnitskaya did meet with Trump aides at Trump Tower. It was arranged by British music publicist Robert Goldstone, notorious for getting his clients what they want by any means necessary. The Russian attorney wanted a meeting, so Goldstone told the incoming administration that she had dirt on Clinton. She didn’t. She had nothing and was there, instead, to lobby against the Magnitsky Act, the sole reason she was in America. The act—named for Russian tax advisor Sergei Magnitsky, who was killed in prison after 11 months in police custody—is complex and involves sanctions against a number of Russian citizens who may or may not have been connected to Magnitsky’s downfall and death. Regardless, she was not at Trump Tower to collude, to pass along any information about Clinton, or to bring Moscow knee-deep into U.S. electoral politics. 

Mueller investigated the reasons surrounding the organizing of the meeting—Goldstone’s lie— and not the meeting itself. Thus, there was no collusion stemming from the infamous Trump Tower meeting. When Mueller sat before the House, answering seething questions aimed at exposing someone, anyone, in the administration, he grasped at straws to find anything of substance.  

We now know that since May 17, 2017, the day Mueller was appointed, this has been a $40 million investigation. At this point, it seems like a large sum to play Story Hour before Congress, relating fictional yarns that were the hopes and dreams of a special prosecutor and his congressional playmates.   

 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] He is also an occasional contributor to TBR history magazine and the current managing editor of Deep Truth Journal (DTJ), a new conspiracy-focused publication available from the AFP Online Store.

Democrats Are Key Obstacle to Border Crisis Solution

Even left-leaning media have had enough of the Democratic Party’s incessant “assailing” of President Trump and refusal to “address the roots of this genuine crisis.”

By Mark Anderson

Today’s Democratic Party is no longer your grandparents’ Democratic Party. The party that once stood up for America’s working class has become little more than a criminal syndicate that makes largely unrealistic or unachievable political overtures while leveraging lawlessness as its underlying credo. Just as the “Demonrats” will do nothing to defend the defenseless in their zeal to promote abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it follows that national borders also will be afforded no defense by a pathetic party that has essentially descended into Marxism.

The situation regarding the southern border has gotten so bad that even Fareed Zakaria, a liberal- leaning globalist host on the pro-Democrat CNN network, spoke out on the Democratic Party’s ridiculous antics while noting that the border crisis long denied by the Democrats actually exists.

“Democrats have spent most of their efforts on this topic, assailing the Trump administration for its heartlessness,” said Zakaria, a longtime Council on Foreign Relations member. “Fine. But that does not address the roots of this genuine crisis. If things continue to spiral downward and America’s southern border seems out of control, Trump’s tough rhetoric and hardline stance will become increasingly attractive to the public.”

And while Zakaria’s comments certainly apply to the two dozen or so Democratic presidential candidates—all of whom spout the tiresome view that illegal immigrants’ rights supersede those of American citizens—they surely apply to Congress, especially a Democratic-led House that points fingers instead of ensuring the passage of vitally necessary legislation to make sure President Donald Trump has the tools and funds to faithfully execute the laws of this nation and defend the border. The Democrats’ blame game also sparked comments from acting Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli, who recently told Fox News that the Democrats are simply “complaining about a crisis at the border they have done nothing to solve.”

Subscribe to AFP

Cuccinelli correctly stated that a surge of asylum claims is overwhelming American facilities whose resources are severely strained. Amid media- fed impressions that illegal immigrants are frequently mistreated—including discredited claims the asylum-seekers are being tortured in facilities akin to “concentration camps”—he said the reality of so many people illegally entering the U.S. has inevitably resulted in poor conditions from the sheer volume of the onslaught.

“People in the House [of Representatives] come down and complain . . . while not helping fix the problem,” he told Fox News Sunday. “It’s the height of hypocrisy.”

Cuccinelli also visited an El Paso, Texas detention facility that had a maximum capacity of 800 people, but by the time he got there, it had considerably more.

“It was being run well. It was run safely, and so forth, but once you’re over those capacity points, you encounter problems,” he said. He called on Congress to pass legislation that would change asylum laws in ways that would limit the numbers of those who can enter the U.S., but he was not optimistic that lawmakers will act properly.

Crimes & Coverups, Jeffries
Donald Jeffries, New at the AFP Online Store

One of the latest Harvard/Harris polls found that 51% of American voters support mass deportations of the 11 million to 22 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. should Congress fail to reach a deal that closes asylum system loopholes. “More than eight in 10 Republican voters [and] more than 5-in-10 swing voters said President Trump should carry out mass deportations of illegal aliens following congressional inaction. Nearly nine in 10 Trump supporters said the same,” reported Breitbart news, citing that poll. On June 26, the Senate, with a thunderous 84- 8 vote, did approve $4.6 billion in “emergency humanitarian aid” for the southwestern border, leading to discussions between Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on how to reach a compromise whereby the bill could pass both chambers and get to Trump’s desk. But Congress needs to steadily hear from AFP readers and all Americans on the border crisis via calls and letters to their local and national offices.

Tell Congress members that building the wall, especially in the most strategic areas, still matters and that Border Patrol agents need authorization to process asylum claims, even while more immigration judges need to be sworn in and assigned the task of drastically reducing the backlog and therefore the overcrowding. Tell them Trump must be permitted to secure the border with the funds and tools already authorized by Congress, but that more provisions are needed. The Capitol Hill switchboard numbers for any House or Senate member are: (202) 224-3121 or 225-3121.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. Email him at [email protected].

Will Mercenaries Fight America’s Wars?

President Trump may turn to soldiers for hire to wage illegal wars in Afghanistan and Venezuela.

By Philip Giraldi

President Donald Trump’s pre-election pledge to end America’s useless wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan just might turn out to be somewhat less than what was promised if some political allies of the president have their way. For the past year there have been rumors circulating in Washington about the possibility of using mercenaries rather than American soldiers to keep the lid on a volatile Afghanistan and to arrange for regime change in countries like Venezuela.

It perhaps should surprise no one that a country dedicated to “free markets” should at least somewhat embrace the idea of using mercenaries to fight its wars. The concept is already embedded in the federal government, increasingly so since 9/11. A majority of the workers in the intelligence community as well as in the civilian ranks of the Pentagon are already paid contractors who work for the “Beltway bandit” firms that specialize in national security. A substantial number of those hires are armed paramilitaries operating in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Mideast and Africa.

The logic for going with contractors rather than employees has been that budgets go up and down, so it is the smart thing to have a lot of people working for you who are on one-year contracts and can be let go if the money to pay them is not authorized. The downside is that the average federal employee costs roughly $125,000 per year in pay and benefits. A contractor costs three times as much, which means that the taxpayer pays the piper for something that is a convenience for the government.

The most prominent advocate for mercenary armies is Erik Prince, an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and the founder of the controversial private security firm Blackwater. Blackwater was a major private military contractor in Iraq, where it provided security for State Department operations and facilities. Notoriously, in 2007, Blackwater employees shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians at Nisour Square in Baghdad. One of Prince’s employees was eventually convicted of murder and three others have been convicted of manslaughter. Prince subsequently renamed the Blackwater security company and then sold it in 2010.

Prince, the scion of a wealthy Midwestern family that made its money selling auto parts, is himself a former Navy SEAL. Many of his Blackwater employees were drawn from the special operations community. His sister is Betsy DeVos, the conservative secretary of education, which certainly helps make sure that his views will be conveyed to the White House.

National Coin Investments

Two years ago, Prince was lobbying heavily in Washington in support of his plan to privatize the war in Afghanistan. He claimed that mercenaries operating in the special ops mode and not requiring a huge logistical tail could be more cost and manpower effective at fighting the similarly armed Taliban. But Prince did not see that as their primary mission, which would be training Afghan national forces while at the same time running the key elements in the country’s government that would support the effort, namely the treasury and national security team. In other words, it would be the foreign mercenaries in charge with the Afghan government going along for the ride until the situation would improve. Having the paid soldiers and their administrators in charge would also eliminate the pervasive Afghan government corruption, which has to this point crippled the war and training efforts.

It was a neat and also creative package that would at a stroke end direct U.S. involvement in the Afghan war, in a manner of speaking. It would also be quite lucrative for the company providing the mercenaries and the other support. Empirically speaking, however, it was always a nonstarter. The ability of a group of mercenaries to multitask in a difficult environment like Afghanistan has never been tested at this level, and it is impossible to imagine that the Afghan government would cede its authorities to a band of Americans and Europeans.

More recently, Prince has been supporting something similar, a private mercenary army of a few thousand men that would bring down the government of Venezuela’s socialist President Nicholas Maduro. Having learned from the Afghan experience that it is necessary to come up with the money before coming up with a plan, Prince has been discussing Venezuela with conservative Republican donors as well as with Miami-based Venezuelan millionaires, the so-called “bankers and oligarchs” that ran the country before the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 forced many of them to go into exile. He has been seeking $40 million in seed money for the operation.

Justice on Trial
Now at the AFP Store: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court

More recently, Prince has been supporting something similar, a private mercenary army of a few thousand men that would bring down the government of Venezuela’s socialist President Nicholas Maduro. Having learned from the Afghan experience that it is necessary to come up with the money before coming up with a plan, Prince has been discussing Venezuela with conservative Republican donors as well as with Miami-based Venezuelan millionaires, the so-called “bankers and oligarchs” that ran the country before the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 forced many of them to go into exile. He has been seeking $40 million in seed money for the operation.

In private meetings in the United States and Europe, Prince sketched out a plan to field up to 5,000 soldiers-for-hire on behalf of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido. He has argued that a dramatic step is necessary to break through the standoff between Guaido and Maduro. Prince’s pitch detailing how he would accomplish a change in government features intelligence operations preceding deployment of those 5,000 mercenaries recruited in Latin America to conduct “combat and stabilization operations.”

The White House is cool to the plan, particularly in the wake of the poor intelligence that led to the badly bungled and embarrassing Venezuelan coup in May. It is currently more inclined to tighten sanctions to create more unrest, particularly as there are already reports of starvation in some parts of the country.

There also has been concern in Washington policy circles that the introduction of foreign soldiers in Venezuela could lead to civil war, something like a replay of what has been experienced in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Libya. But the most interesting aspect of the discussion is the fact that it is taking place at all. The United States of America, hostile to the ability of kings to initiate wars on their own authority, was founded in part in opposition to any permanent standing army beyond what was necessary for self-defense.

Now, the U.S. may be considering major military operations using mercenary armies to deal with undeclared and illegal wars thousands of miles away that do not even threaten the homeland. It is, unfortunately, just one more indication of how the United States has been changed beyond all recognition in the past 20 years.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.

U.S. International Meddling Backfires Again in Libya

U.S. missiles have ended up in the hands of the general leading a military effort to overthrow the U.S.-backed Libyan government. Yet again, the U.S.’s meddling in other countries’ affairs has come back to haunt us.

By Donald Jeffries

Four powerful Javelin anti-tank missiles were recently discovered in Libya by a group of government loyalists. The missiles were American-made and cost more than $170,000 each. In one of those ironies that are rife throughout the history of American interference in the affairs of other sovereign nations, the missiles wound up as part of the arsenal of Gen. Khalifa Haftar, who is leading a military effort to overthrow the present Libyan government, which the United States supports.

Evidence indicated that the weapons were originally sold to the United Arab Emirates in 2008. The discovery brought back for some people memories of the attacks at the Benghazi consulate in 2012. It is hard to avoid speculation that U.S. weapons such as these may have been used against Americans at Benghazi.

Then-President Barack Obama was aware of the Benghazi attacks some 90 minutes after they began, and the entire incident lasted more than 10 hours. While Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood down and provided no support to the beleaguered officers of the CIA and State Department, it was left to a secret unit of former officers from the regime of Muammar Qaddafi that eventually evacuated them to safety. Clinton, of course, had helped overthrow Qaddafi.

Faraday Twins ad

“In other words, some of the very individuals the United States had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans [who] came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attacks,” a House committee report on Benghazi concluded. The committee found no evidence that U.S. forces outside Libya were ever deployed during the incident.

As has routinely happened during the history of modern American intelligence, the CIA was apparently unaware that this secret group of former Qaddafi military officers, calling themselves Libyan Military Intelligence, even existed. Four Americans, including Amb. Christopher Stevens, died in the attack. Incredibly, those Americans who played heroic roles were fired after arriving in Germany following the incident, left responsible for finding their own way back to America.

The Obama administration went on to take away their security clearances, making it difficult for them to find any new government positions. Greg Hicks, the former top diplomat in Libya, informed congressional investigators that U.S. military assets were told to stand down that day.

Former House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told CNN at the time that Hicks “knew this was a terrorist attack and communicated that to the White House, to the State Department, to anyone that would listen before, during, and after.”

Issa blasted the Obama administration’s “talking points,” especially the statements by the United Nations Amb. Susan Rice, which refused to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack.

Hicks went on to say, “I believe that the Libyans were hoping that we were going to come bail them out of this mess. . . . The military forces that did arrive only arrived on the evening of Sept. 12.”

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a member of the committee, told CNN that “military personnel were ready, willing, and able, and within proximity, but the Pentagon told them they had no authority and to stand down.”

A White House Secret Service Officer tells all about Hillary and Bill.

Again reinforcing the reality that the trillions of dollars Americans have spent on the military-industrial complex have been largely wasted, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained to CNN: “This is not 9/11. You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time. That’s the nature of it. Our people are there, they’re in position to move, but we’ve got to have good intelligence that gives us a heads up that something’s going to happen.”

Panetta laughably claimed: “The bottom line is this, that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault, which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response, very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region. Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response. . . . The Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the Department of Defense received we did, we accomplished.”

While Hillary Clinton’s disgusting sound bite, “We came. We saw. He died,” reminds us of how misguided, immoral, and unconstitutional our foreign policy has become, Qaddafi was tremendously popular with the people; he had a higher than 80% approval rate in his country. From the repugnant assassination of Qaddafi to the tragedy at Benghazi to the new discovery of American weapons there, that may well be used against American interests, our escapades in Libya exemplify everything that’s wrong with our corrupt leaders and their foreign policy.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Death By Prescription

Weaponized opioids are at the core of the real white genocide.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

Are people of European descent an endangered species? That is what white nationalists claim. They argue that wealthy elites are conspiring to “replace” white people with Asian, Middle Eastern and African immigrants.

People of European descent are indeed in severe demographic decline worldwide. Patrick Buchanan’s The Death of the West* presciently sounded the alarm: “Between 2000 and 2050 . . . 100 million people of European stock will vanish from the Earth. In 1960, people of European ancestry were one-fourth of the world’s population; in 2000, they were one-sixth; in 2050, they will be one tenth. These are the statistics of a vanishing race.”

The U.S census bureau has confirmed Buchanan’s worst fears. Its statistics for 2017, released in 2018, show that for the first time ever, the white American population is in absolute—not just relative—decline. Today, there are already fewer white children, in all age groups from zero to nine, than nonwhite children. And America’s liberal elites are fine with that. According to a Brookings Institution report: “The good news for the nation is that white aging and potential future declines will be countered by gains in racial minorities.”

Kingdom Identity

But do anti-white elites really want to “replace” people of European descent? In my opinion, there is little evidence that they care about race. A better explanation can be summarized in one word: greed. Big business wants mass immigration to keep wages low. They would rather import cheaper workers, in every job category from vegetable picking to computer programming than pay the higher wages native-born Americans require. They aren’t interested in race; they are only interested in maximizing their profits. So they make sure that plenty of cheap labor keeps flowing through our porous borders. It just so happens that the only sources of cheap labor are in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. So when Brookings says it is “good news” that white Americans are being replaced, it isn’t because they hate white people. Brookings simply recognizes the economy’s need for young working people, of whatever race, to stave off economic collapse.

But average white people’s greed, meaning selfishness and materialism, is also a factor. Europeans in particular are notoriously selfish and hedonistic. They don’t want to make the sacrifices of power, pleasure, and freedom that marriage and child-rearing demand. White American culture is also drifting in the same suicidal direction, and white birthrates are now collapsing in the United States almost as fast as in Europe.

Since genocide is defined as “intentionally destroying a people” and normally entails at least some selective killing of the targeted group, it is hard to claim that people of European descent are victims of genocide. Nonetheless, one could make the argument that white working-class Americans are being genocidally targeted by the purveyors of the opioid epidemic (just as black Americans have been targeted by CIA drug smuggling, according to suicided journalist Gary Webb).

The national bestseller that shocked the nation from Pat Buchanan, available now at the AFP Online Store.

On July 16, NPR reported: “A federal court in Ohio is releasing a trove of data that offers far more detail about the size and scope of the nation’s opioid epidemic—and about the role played by drug companies and pharmacies like CVS, Walgreens, and Johnson & Johnson that profited from the rapid growth of prescription opioid sales.” The report shows that some of America’s biggest business interests deliberately flooded white working-class America with enough opioids to kill off or disable a substantial segment of that population.

The opioid massacre killed so many people that for the first time in history America began losing overall life expectancy. Every single category except white working-class people continued to gain in life expectancy. But the white working class experienced so many premature deaths that the whole nation’s life expectancy declined. Robin Abaya writes that “official government investigators identify 500,000 opioid killings . . . most likely many millions of additional opioid deaths were attributed to heart failure and other causes derived from opioids” (Robin Eastman Abaya, “U.S. Capitalism and the Opioid Epidemic,” in Cynthia McKinney, ed. How the U.S. Creates Sh*thole Countries, Clarity Press, 2018). Sociologist James Petras argues that this massacre of millions of disproportionately white working people was deliberately orchestrated to cull the population—what he calls “genocide by prescription.”

The opioid murderers should be brought to justice. This would require intense and widespread moral fervor. Morality—the willingness to sacrifice the self in order to achieve justice (or raise children)—is a habit of mind that grows out of religious belief. Pat Buchanan has aptly noted, “Kill a nation’s faith, and its people will cease to reproduce.”

If Buchanan is right, only God can save the United States of America.

* The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (hardcover, $25) is available from the AFP Online Store.

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.


Leftist Tech Giant Admits Snooping

Google employs “language experts” to better eavesdrop on your communications.

By Dave Gahary

If anyone has any doubts that the fictionalized dystopia portrayed in the 1948 novel 1984 is here, all one need do is look at the world’s most valuable brand: Google. From the company most well-known for censorship, tax avoidance, antitrust concerns, and Internet search neutrality comes another, more ominous issue: secret surveillance.

As if wanting to mimic Orwell’s “Big Brother” character—the head of a totalitarian state who constantly monitors every citizen—Google has now publicly admitted it is not only listening to but secretly recording customers’ private conversations in their own homes. The only difference between Orwell’s Big Brother and Google is that at least Big Brother admitted he was snooping, with signs placed everywhere stating “Big Brother is watching you.” Google, of course, doesn’t have the courtesy to be as transparent as Big Brother, however incredible that may sound.

Google didn’t just come out and admit it’s secretly spying on its customers. A Belgian public broadcaster reported this month—after a contractor shared a sample audio clip of secret recordings with the journalists—that Google “employs contractors around the globe to listen to some recordings of conversations that people have with the Google Assistant, which is available on its Google Home speakers and Android devices.” Rather than apologize for its actions, Google “blamed a rogue contractor for leaking Dutch customers’ audio in violation of its data-security policies” and vowed to get even by “investigating the matter.”

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

Google Home links up to cell phones and uses “smart” speakers placed in different rooms in a home to recognize voice commands to allow users to interact through its “virtual assistant,” Google Assistant. With these gadgets, users can make hands-free phone calls in the U.S. and Canada, search the Internet, schedule events, set alarms, add reminders and calendar appointments, engage in two-way conversation, listen to music, view videos and photos, receive news updates entirely by voice, control appliances with their voice, and shop by voice for products available from thousands of retailers, including Walmart, Target, Costco, Bed Bath & Beyond, PetSmart, Walgreens, and Whole Foods Market.

Additionally, the device can distinguish voices of up to six people.

The Belgian broadcaster revealed that “the recordings potentially expose sensitive information about users such as names and addresses” and that “Google, in some cases, is recording voices of customers even when they aren’t using Google Assistant.” The report disclosed it “had access to more than 1,000 fragments of audio that a Google contractor had been transcribing.”

Caught in the act of spying, Google admitted in an Internet post on July 11 that “it employs people worldwide to listen to a small sample of recordings” and that “0.2% of ‘audio snippets’ are checked to better understand language differences.”

It isn’t just Google who’s getting into the business of home automation. Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and Samsung also offer virtual assistants. In fact, Amazon was forced to admit last year that one of its “home speakers mistakenly recorded a private conversation and sent it to a person in the owners’ contact list.”

And while the revelations of secret surveillance are new, the political leanings of Silicon Valley’s tech giants are not. This newspaper has reported extensively on the extreme left-leaning economic, social, and political positions of Google, Facebook, and other tech companies, exposed via secret recordings and emails. Many of these companies, sometimes collectively referred to as FAANG—Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google—have a virtual stranglehold on who they allow a public platform. And while examples of their disdain for any and all conservative voices are legion, and have been apparent for quite some time, right-leaning writers and broadcasters have been all but powerless to challenge their near-monopoly on who gets to speak and who doesn’t via their platforms.


Now, however, the tide may be turning. President Donald J. Trump’s U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has opened “a broad antitrust review into whether dominant technology firms are unlawfully stifling competition,” according to a July 23 Wall Street Journal article. The companies in the DoJ’s sights are reported as four of FAANG’s members: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google.

The antitrust inquiry, which will focus on companies that “dominate Internet search, social media, and retail services,” seems to be the brainchild of U.S. Attorney General William Barr, and will “ratchet up the already considerable regulatory pressures facing the top U.S. tech firms.”

And since the DoJ shares antitrust enforcement authority with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—which in February of this year began monitoring competition in the tech sector—these high-tech darlings could be exposed to antitrust claims from both the DoJ and the FTC. Barr’s confirmation hearing in January of this year set the stage for the review, when he voiced his concerns about this issue.

“I don’t think big is necessarily bad,” Barr told the senators at his hearing when fielding a question of Big Tech’s monopoly position, “but I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers. You can win that place in the marketplace without violating the antitrust laws, but I want to find out more about that dynamic.”

Barr isn’t wasting time reining in Silicon Valley. The DoJ recently heard from Facebook’s critics advocating for its breakup. Additionally, the Journal confirmed earlier this year that the DoJ is “preparing to probe whether . . . Google is engaging in unlawful monopolization practices.”

Also, on a positive note for those negatively affected by Big Tech’s leftist agenda, both the DoJ and FTC “have made clear that they view tech-sector competition issues as a priority.”

In fact, on the day after Google admitted it secretly spied on some of its customers, the FTC announced it endorsed a $5 billion settlement with Facebook over its “long-running probe into the tech giant’s privacy missteps.” That’s billion, with a “b.”

George Orwell's 1984, Large Print
Now at AFP, Orwell’s classic, 1984, in large print.

And while the FTC’s commissioners broke along party lines with a 3-2 vote (Republicans for, Democrats against), the Journal reports that “attitudes have shifted as some consumers, and politicians on both the left and the right, have grown uncomfortable with how much power and influence they wield in the economy and society.”

“Some Democratic presidential candidates have called for the breakup of companies like Google and Facebook,” reported the Journal, “while lawmakers of both parties have sounded alarm bells. . . .”

And this month, executives from Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google testified before a House antitrust subcommittee, which “is taking a broad look at potential anticompetitive conduct in the tech sector.”

President Trump, too, has suggested bringing suits against Facebook and Google, which could influence the direction of the DoJ/FTC probe. “Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands,” the DoJ’s antitrust chief said in a statement.

“The department’s antitrust review will explore these important issues.”

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