Company Wants Employees ‘Chipped’

• Wisconsin company says bio-chips can replace swipe cards, log in to computers, order food

By Dave Gahary

Five years ago this week, when American Free Press was the first national newspaper to break the story on a San Antonio, Texas school attempting to force all 4,200 students “to wear radio frequency identification (RFID) microchips embedded in the student IDs worn around their necks,” it may have seemed to most readers the stuff of science fiction. Not only is the technology more advanced today, however, it’s gaining acceptance as well. Although the teenage heroine in AFP roving editor Mark Anderson’s 2012 report—Andrea Hernandez—eventually won her battle based on religious beliefs that opposed being “chipped,” having microchips voluntarily injected subcutaneously is now a growing fad. Around two years after AFP’s report, the BBC reported on a company that’s perfecting the art of chipping. In Sweden, a high-technology office complex—Epicenter—is offering chipping to any employee who wants it, and many are jumping at the chance. Even BBC reporter Rory Cellan-Jones—who wrote the Jan. 29, 2015 article entitled “Office puts chips under staff’s skin”—volunteered to have the device, about the size of a grain of rice, implanted in his hand, between his thumb and index finger. He explained the process in the article.

First, he massaged the skin between my thumb and index finger and rubbed in some disinfectant. The[n] he told me to take a deep breath while he inserted the chip. There was a moment of pain—not much worse than any injection—and then he stuck a plaster [an adhesive bandage] over my hand.

Eventually, all 700 employees working in the complex were to be offered the “opportunity” to be chipped. The man implanting the chips—Hannes Sjoblad, who works for the Swedish “biohacking” company BioNyfiken—told the reporter: We already interact with technology all the time. Today it’s a bit messy—we need pin codes and passwords. Wouldn’t it be easy to just touch with your hand? That’s really intuitive. We want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and big government come to us and say everyone should get chipped—the tax authority chip, the Google or Facebook chip.

An Associated Press (AP) article updating Epicenter’s “progress,” reported that of the “more than 100 companies and some 2,000 workers . . . about 150 workers have them.” The report notes a company in Belgium “also offers its employees such implants, and there are isolated cases around the world where tech enthusiasts have tried this out in recent years.”

“The implants have become so popular,” reports AP, “that Epicenter workers stage monthly events where attendees have the option of being ‘chipped’ for free.” Now the chipping craze has crossed the pond. As reported in the pages of USA Today on July 24, a “Wisconsin technology firm has begun offering employees microchip implants so they can [enter the company building without a swipe card] and purchase food at work.” The company, Three Square Market (32M)—which is partnering with BioNyfiken—“has over 50 employees who plan to have the devices implanted.”

According to a company press release, 32M “is offering implanted chip technology to all of their employees. Employees will be chipped at the 32M inaugural ‘chip party’ hosted at their headquarters in River Falls, Wisc. on Aug. 1, 2017. Employees will be implanted with a RFID chip allowing them to make purchases in their break room micro market, open doors, log in to computers, use the copy machine etc.” CEO Todd Westby states: “We foresee the use of RFID technology to drive everything from making purchases in our office break room market, opening doors, use of copy machines, logging into our office computers, unlocking phones, sharing business cards, storing medical/health information, and used as payment at other RFID terminals. Eventually, this technology will become standardized allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities etc.”

Vice President of International Sales Tony Danna added, “We see chip technology as the next evolution in payment systems.” Fortunately for those neo-luddites among us, not everyone is as eager to step into this brave, new world. State lawmakers in Nevada heard testimony earlier this year regarding chipping. Legislation introduced by state Sen. Becky Harris “would bar forcefully implanted tracking microchips,” reported the Reno Gazette-Journal on Feb. 13. Sen. Harris believes “the chips pose serious ethical concerns, such as who owns the information stored on the chip and who owns the chip itself.”

She’s also concerned that the chips could be “hacked,” allowing someone unauthorized access to the chip for an illegal purpose. “There’s no cryptology or protection measures that we’re aware of that are placed on these chips, so it’s possible to hack the information contained within the chips,” she said. “It is possible that you could harass or stalk chipped individuals with the right type of reader.” Sen. Harris also claims “the chips also pose a potential health problem, citing studies that found fibrosarcoma and sarcoma, a malignant cancerous tumor, at injection sites in animal testing.”

Humans morphing into cancerous cyborgs may have come to pass, but it’s not fazing certain portions of the younger generation. A 25-year-old employee who works for a company in the Epicenter complex, Sandra Haglof, is ready for the transformation. Laughing, she told AP, “I want to be part of the future.”

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.




Arpaio Bypasses Fake Media

• Lawman tells AFP his investigation into Obama birth records spurred high-level retribution

• Says he might consider running for public office again if President Trump made the request

By Mark Anderson

On Friday, Aug. 25 President Donald Trump announced his plan to pardon “America’s sheriff,” Joe Arpaio. Recently, in an effort to bypass the fake news, American Free Press reached out to Arpaio to hear directly from the embattled lawman. The hostile mainstream press has repeatedly piled on the false narrative that Arpaio had engaged in “racial profiling” when his deputies apprehended illegal alien suspects—of mainly Mexican extraction in a state that borders Mexico—thereby running afoul of the Fourth Amendment in the process. But Arpaio doesn’t see it that way, arguing that he was elected by the people of his county to enforce the law even when it was not the politically correct thing to do. Arpaio, finally feeling free to speak out in the wake of the pardon, told this AFP writer that he has always considered himself a “constitutional sheriff” answerable to the people who elected him, not a bureaucratized police chief under the sway of a mayor or city council. He recalls being actually sworn in to carry out the enforcement of federal immigration laws under Immigrations and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) 287(g) program.

“I had the authority to enforce immigration laws . . . sworn in by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,” he explained to AFP, specifying that his department exercised powers specifically granted to it to round up illegal aliens, detain them, and hand them over to federal authorities for processing. Arpaio added that two state laws, one to combat human smuggling and another to sanction employers hiring those in the country illegally, provided an additional backstop. “The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement, in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions,” states a passage on the DHS website.

IRS Loses Cases

“Just before I left the department, we had 10,000 detainees turned over [to the feds] but around 33% came back,” Arpaio continued, expressing his frustration over repeat offenders. “When the president pardoned me, he didn’t necessarily have all the facts,” the former Drug Enforcement Administration officer continued, “but I’m sure it was because [there was] no jury trial for me.” Prior to the pardon, Arpaio was slated to be sentenced Oct. 5, likely for up to six months in jail. After a short trial, originally scheduled to start in early December 2016 but delayed, he was pronounced guilty on July 6 by Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court in Phoenix. Judge Bolton issued the verdict from the bench because Arpaio’s request for a jury trial was denied. But because no court hearing was convened to read Arpaio the verdict in open court, which his attorneys say also runs counter to legal constitutional interpretations, he learned of his verdict from the media.

THE OBAMA FACTOR

Tea party group members, frustrated because they could not find anyone with the temerity to probe Obama’s background, had approached Arpaio about their birth-certificate concerns. He accepted the challenge somewhat reluctantly, knowing the “heat” would soon come from the top, he said. Interestingly, Donald Trump raised the birthcertificate issue early on when he was considering running for president, prior to the 2012 election. Arpaio went on to say that after his “Cold-Case Posse” was formed in 2011, at no cost to taxpayers, to explore the legitimacy of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate—which the posse maintained was fraudulent based on forensic research—things soon “went south” for Arpaio.

In hindsight, Arpaio told AFP, “I don’t think it was so much the illegal roundups. . . I think it was the birth certificate issue they [the Obama administration] were mainly after me about.” According to both Arpaio and his birth-certificate researcher Mike Zullo, notorious billionaire and cultural-political revolutionary George Soros financially fueled the “un-elect Joe” movement, reportedly to the tune of around $3 million, that resulted in Arpaio’s re-election defeat last November after 24 years as a highly popular sheriff. Arpaio lamented that the mainstream media, while fixated on select constitutional questions since his pardon, to this day still “won’t even look into Obama’s birth certificate issue.”

Arpaio revealed for the first time something he discovered during his last re-election campaign. In accordance with applicable law, those behind the anti-Arpaio TV ads, used in a blitz that ran during early voting and right up to election day, were required to send him advance copies of those attack ads, which, he noted, were mailed to him from a New York office of the national Perkins Coie law firm. What’s especially interesting about the sender’s return address is that this law firm is the same firm that represented Obama in the birth-certificate probe. Even more interesting is that, according to Zullo, President Obama’s personal attorney, Judith Corley of Perkins Coie, is the one who flew to Hawaii to get the certificate and deliver it to the White House as the probe over the authenticity of the certificate continued. Soros has also been linked to Perkins Coie.

Zullo noted that Arpaio’s last official action—a press conference he held on Dec. 15, 2016, just before Democrat Paul Penzone officially assumed office—concluded the six-year birth-certificate probe by announcing to the incredulous press on hand that the so-called “birth certificate” was “an electronic file, not a birth certificate,” meaning it was a file “with no probative value”—in other words, fraudulent. That determination, said Zullo, is according to the independent, double-blind findings of two separate forensics entities that use different approaches to examining public documents for authenticity.

WILL ARPAIO RUN AGAIN?

Arpaio, now 85, told AFP that he’s received calls urging him to run for office, perhaps for Congress. While some press accounts have reported that the Arizona Senate seat currently occupied by Republican Jeff Flake has sparked Arpaio’s interest, he told AFP: “Originally, after I lost the sheriff’s race, I said, ‘I’m out of this.’ I actually don’t know what office I’d run for.” Arpaio added that he feels the mainstream press, such as the Washington Examiner, may have presumed too much regarding his possible political plans. However, he told AFP, “I didn’t say no or never in a million years, either.”

According to the Examiner, “Flake is in a tenuous position. A recent poll found that the first-term senator has only a 22% approval rating among Trump supporters, as well as a 63% disapproval rating. (Among Arizonans overall, Flake has an 18% approval rating.)” Arpaio also told AFP that he would not totally rule out running for sheriff again. Meanwhile, Trump, who’s friends with Arpaio and supports his views, has to some extent encouraged candidates to run against Flake. The president recently dubbed the senator “Flake Jeff Flake” and suggested he’s “weak” on border security and crime. Arpaio rapped Flake and fellow Arizona Sen. John McCain for publicly opposing him, by saying Arpaio ignored the “rule of law” as sheriff, rather than getting together with the lawman to get the facts. Arpaio concluded, “Now, if President Trump asked me to run [for whatever office], that’d be a ‘wild card’ to consider.”




Fighting ‘Hate,’ Killing Free Speech

Anti-Defamation League undercutting free expression by indoctrinating mayors, police

By John Friend

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization openly hostile to the First Amendment that seeks to advance pro-Israel interests and shut down free expression with often baseless charges of “anti-Semitism,” has partnered with the United States Conference of Mayors in the wake of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. in an effort to combat “hate” and “extremism,” Marxist buzzwords that are applied to patriotic Americans willing to buck the tyrannical system of political correctness plaguing the West. The United States Conference of Mayors is an official, non-partisan organization representing American cities with populations exceeding 30,000. More than 300 mayors from major American cities across the nation have collaborated with the ADL on the project, and have pledged to implement the 10-point Mayors’ Compact to Combat Hate, Extremism, and Bigotry, developed almost entirely by the subversive, anti-American organization.

Some of the 10 key initiatives outlined in the compact include “rejecting extremism, white supremacy, and all forms of bigotry,” as well as prioritizing and promoting “anti-bias” and “anti-hate” programs—which are also developed by the ADL—in America’s public and private schools. Additionally, the compact encourages local residents and community members to report “hate incidents”; seeks to strengthen “hate crime” laws; and promotes training for law enforcement officials across the country to respond to and deal with “hate.”

The compact represents an attempt by the ADL to institutionalize its subversive, anti-free speech agenda, a major and long-running goal of the antiAmerican organization. The Unite the Right rally, which was legally organized by leading members of the alt-right, a burgeoning, loose-knit, right-wing movement that embraces racial identity and populism while rejecting globalism, multiculturalism, and massive non-white immigration to America and the wider Western world, has been used as an excuse to advance a number of blatantly anti-free speech agendas, including the censoring of some alt-right commentators on the Internet.

The rally was legally permitted, yet faced enormous obstacles from local political leaders in Charlottesville. The entirely distorted narrative spun by the political and media establishment portrayed the altright organizers and supporters as hateful, racist bigots who were determined to violently confront and attack the counterprotesters who showed up to peacefully demonstrate against the rally. The fake news media and establishment political and media pundits hysterically condemned everyone in the altright as violent extremists and terrorists, white supremacists, neo-nazis, and even Ku Klux Klansmen. Meanwhile, Antifa and other leftist extremists who engaged in physical confrontations and violence against the alt-right were portrayed as righteous and honorable protesters simply attempting to exercise their First Amendment rights. Needless to say, the concept of “hate” will be defined by the ADL and will, of course, encompass any form of criticism or resistance to its subversive, antiAmerican agenda.

“What happened in Charlottesville . . . reminds us all that violent hate and racism are very much alive in America in 2017,” Tom Cochran, the CEO and executive director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said when the compact was announced. “For decades, America’s mayors have taken a strong position in support of civil rights and in opposition to racism and discrimination of all kinds. At this critical time mayors are doing so again through this compact in an effort to combathate, extremism, and bigotry in their cities and in our nation.”

The ADL has played a key role in politicizing and militarizing law enforcement in the United States for decades, and routinely offers training courses for local, state, and federal law enforcement officials and entities across the country. The ADL openly describes itself as “the foremost non-governmental organization in the United States that offers law enforcement training on terrorism, extremism, and hate crimes” and boasts that it has “trained well over 100,000 federal, state, local, and military law enforcement officers.”

Law enforcement officials at all levels of government also regularly travel to Israel to receive training and advice from their Israeli counterparts, particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, which many prominent researchers believe the Zionist state played a central role in carrying out, further militarizing American law enforcement, as is the case in Israel. This often involves U.S. law enforcement working closely with the Israeli military and police, both of which have been accused of carrying out war crimes against Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land.

Interestingly, Anita Gray, a regional director for the ADL in Cleveland, Ohio, admitted in a revealing interview with Cleveland Jewish News shortly after the rally that her organization had been “working on the ground and behind the scenes leading up to, during, and after the rally” in Charlottesville. “We remain in close contact with law enforcement, elected officials, community leaders, and others and continue to provide critical research, resources, and community support,” Ms. Gray went on to explain. “All of our offices have been working around the clock to respond, inform, and take action.”

The insidious agenda of the ADL could not be clearer in the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally, i.e., to stamp out criticism of Israel.




Texas Blacks Back Rebel Monuments

Many activists realize stone and marble not the worst problems facing blacks

By Dave Gahary

Following the government- and mainstream media-instigated violence in Charlottesville, Va. last month, various municipalities across this once-great nation are taking and considering taking preemptive steps to remove Confederate monuments from public land, so as not to invoke the wrath of the ascendant terrorist groups Black Lives Matter and the more loosely organized Antifa. In the halcyon days of these United States, if mask-wearing thugs arrived in any town or city intent on waging war in that community, they were met with the iron fist of law and order. No more. On Aug. 14, Philip Kingston, who serves on the Dallas city council, took aim at a Robert E. Lee statue and other monuments in the city. Kingston believes “monuments to the Confederacy should not be on public land,” as reported in an article by the local CBS fake-news outlet. So biased and hateful have the fake-news media become that the caption under the photo of the Lee statue reads:

The Confederate War Memorial in Dallas, Texas, is a monument that attempts to glorify the treasonous acts of those who fought to defend slavery on the Confederate side of the American Civil War.

IRS Loses Cases

Kingston’s resolution requires action by Sept. 13, when, if passed, a citizen-based task force will be created to decide the fate of the monuments. Interestingly, the Southern heritage-destroying councilman made news in July when the city’s chief financial officer sent a memo to Kingston demanding he return $8,160 of his $60,000 salary because he missed too many council meetings. “I was just busy,” Kingston said, as reported by The Dallas Morning News. Some Dallas residents are busy as well, but for a different reason. A predominantly black group led by former city councilwoman Sandra Crenshaw is calling for Dallas’s Confederate monuments to remain standing, since removing them will not help alleviate media-alleged “racism.”

“I’m not intimidated by Robert E. Lee’s statue,” Ms. Crenshaw told the aforementioned newspaper. “It doesn’t scare me. We don’t want America to think that all African-Americans are supportive of this. Some people think that by taking a statue down, that’s going to erase racism. Misguided.”

Naturally, Kingston struck back. “What we don’t do is leave up a monument that celebrates the very idea that some of us are not equal to the others,” he said. “These monuments distort history; they don’t teach history.” On cue, Democratic mayor, former Pizza Hut CEO, and ad agency head Mike Rawlings chimed in by stating that the “white supremacists” in Charlottesville were “pure evil.”

AMERICAN FREE PRESS asked 69-year-old black Confederate supporter H.K. Edgerton for his views on the happenings in Dallas and across the country. “I applaud the fact that they’re coming together to oppose the removal of statues,” he began. “However, I don’t like the tone of this message. Instead of saying ‘not intimidated by Robert E. Lee,’ she should’ve been very proud of Gen. Robert E. Lee, probably one of the most admired and respected men of his time and this time.” Edgerton commented on the culture destroyers.

“What we have now is a continuation of what these folks did after the war when they sent these Northern school teachers to the Southland of America,” he said, “trying to divide and separate black folks and white folks. “The biggest problem I have is not with black folks, it’s with white folk guilt,” he said. “Most of the Black Lives Matter folks I see are young white folks. I’ve been all across this country and I’ll tell you right now most black folks don’t like being used as a weapon of choice to [enable] this destruction of our heritage and our history, [by] tearing down these monuments. This looks like Reconstruction all over again.”

He added: “I ran into Black Lives Matter and I’ve run into Antifa, in places where I was going to speak. These folks are domestic terrorists. If ‘black lives matter,’ they ought to be in Houston right now trying to help some black folks. If ‘black lives matter,’ they ought to be in Chicago trying to help those black folks who are killing each other in record numbers.” H —— 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.




Feds Fail to Convict More Bundy Supporters

TWO MORE BUNDY SUPPORTERS GO FREE

By Mark Anderson

In the ongoing “Bundy” trials, as they’ve come to be known, on Aug. 22, a jury was unable to convict four defendants who were retried this summer after prosecutors failed to get a conviction the first time around. Two of those four, Steven Stewart and Richard Lovelien, have been acquitted of all charges and are free men. O. Scott Drexler and Eric Parker, however, were acquitted on most but not all counts and are still in federal custody. After languishing in federal prison for around 18 months like the rest of the defendants in this saga, Drexler and Parker have been released to home detention. Although their retrial saw them formally acquitted on some charges, it ended simply with “no verdict” on other charges: assault on a federal officer and related firearm charges stemming from their part in a protest against the attempted seizure of Cliven Bundy’s cattle during an April 12, 2014 “standoff” with armed U.S. Bureau of Land Management agents. This means that Drexler and Parker will be retried on the remaining charges —for a third time. And the charges are rather serious.

Parker is still facing four counts of assaulting a federal officer, threatening a federal officer, using a firearm in a crime of violence while assaulting a federal officer, and the same firearm charge to threaten a federal officer. Drexler’s remaining charges are assaulting a federal officer and using a firearm in a crime of violence to assault a federal officer. More good news is that, amid the hard reality of having been imprisoned and denied a speedy trial as the Constitution requires, Cliven Bundy— the patriarch of a family synonymous with protesting often heavy-handed federal land policies—will finally be going to trial in the same federal court. He’ll be joined by several other defendants who backed him and his family at that April 2014 protest, where some protestors did carry firearms to exercise their Second Amendment rights in an open-carry state, yet no shots were fired in the encounter.

Drowning in debt

Judge Gloria Navarro of the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas set a date of Oct. 10 for jury selection to begin there for the trial of the second set of defendants, which includes Cliven and several others. According to the original court schedule, there were to be three trials. Cliven, his sons Ammon and Ryan, Internet radio host Pete Santilli, and Ryan Payne have long been slated to be the second trial’s defendants. But due to the most recent developments, Drexler and Parker will join them in mid-October. “This next trial involving Cliven is the so-called ‘leadership’ trial, as the government sees it,” said legal expert Roger Roots of Montana, who has attended nearly every day of the trial. Cliven, his two sons, Santilli, and Payne each face 15 charges generally including conspiracy, assault and threats against federal officers, firearms counts, and obstruction and extortion. Though it seems unlikely at this juncture, conviction on all charges would ensure life imprisonment for all.




Who Gets to Define What’s ‘Hate’?

Christian urban renewal activist says “alt-left” following an insidious path

By Star Parker

As if recent events don’t give us enough to worry about, now we have a new missive in The Atlantic magazine from former Vice President Joe Biden concerning the incident in Charlottesville.

Biden wants to declare America a hate-free zone. He says we should declare “no place for these hate groups in America. Hatred of blacks, Jews, immigrants—all who are seen as ‘the other’—won’t be accepted or tolerated or given safe harbor anywhere in this nation.”

As sickening as the “alt-right” racist bigots may be, at least we know where they’re coming from. They make no claim to the high ground. Their racism is on the table, in the light of day. But the “alt-left” is far more insidious. Take, for instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). They are self-appointed mission control for identifying who and where are the haters in America.

They publish a “Hate Map” on their website, in which 917 “hate groups” are identified, ripe for elimination in the spirit of Biden’s appeal. Included are 101 anti-Muslim hate groups, but somehow not a single anti-Christian hate group is identified. Actually, Christian groups, in their map, turn out to be the haters.

SPLC identifies at least 19 Christian organizations as hate groups. Groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, which provides legal counsel to those whose religious freedom has been abrogated (e.g., a Christian baker being sued for refusing to create a cake for a same-sex wedding), or Family Research Council, which publishes research in support of public policy consistent with traditional Christian values, or D. James Kennedy Ministries, which, through its church and media, disseminates the Christian gospel and sermons of its founder, Dr. D. James Kennedy.

Peacefully preaching Christian gospel is, in the eyes of the SPLC, an act of hate because part of this gospel chastises homosexual behavior as sinful. Unfortunately, in today’s tortured culture, sources deemed by some authority like CNN or GuideStar, which provides data on evaluating nonprofit  organizations, reference the SPLC “Hate Map” as a guide to hate in the country.

Two major corporations, JP Morgan and Apple, announced six-figure contributions to the SPLC after the  events in Charlottesville. In a memo to employees, JP Morgan’s head of corporate responsibility noted that their contribution to SPLC is “to further their work in tracking, exposing, and fighting hate groups and other extremist organizations across the country.”

In 2012, a young man entered the office of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., and shot  the building manager. He, fortunately, was caught and subsequently sentenced to 25 years in prison. He has a volunteer at a pro-gay organization and told the FBI that he used the SPLC hate map to find FRC and that his plan was to kill as many as he could. D. James Kennedy Ministries recently filed a lawsuit against the SPLC for defamation.

In recent media appearances discussing Charlottesville, I noted the equivalency I see between the LGBT rainbow flag and the Confederate flag. Both stand, as I explained, for particular dogma and are statements of exclusion to those who don’t fit their worldview. Those who don’t agree with me are  welcome to say so. But, instead, the so-called advocates of tolerance shut down my office in Washington, D.C., with an avalanche of calls and threats.

We can’t legislate what people feel. But we can and must recapture the American vision of freedom, where law protects individual life, liberty and property, so our large and diverse population can  live together peacefully and productively.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Contact her at www.urbancure.org.

 




Dream Act Hypocrisy

Kids of illegals get benefits while needy U.S. students lose vouchers

By Allen B. West

President Donald Trump has announced he will be ending the Obama program called DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The program was established by Barack Obama in June 2012 and allows illegal immigrants who entered the United States as minors to receive renewable, two-year deferments from deportation as well as work permits.

First, we need to understand that the pertinent word is illegal. These are children born in the United States of illegal-immigrant parents who had violated and disregarded the sovereign laws of this nation. If we’re to continue as a constitutional republic, and not a constitutional monarchy, we must adhere to and preserve our rule of law.

DACA is unconstitutional in every way. The Constitution states it clearly in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Article I denotes the enumerated powers of the legislative branch—the House and Senate, or Congress, and Article II denotes the enumerated powers of the executive branch.

A simple perusal will help the reader realize that we’re to be governed by the rule of law, not ruled by edict from an executive. Article II consists of only four sections; the final section establishes the grounds for removal of the executive, the president. If we wish to have a purely constitutional discussion about DACA, it’s obvious Obama exceeded his enumerated powers and established an unconstitutional policy. Now, the question is, do we want to be ruled by edict based upon the ideological agenda of a ruler? If so, then let’s go right ahead and continue on with DACA.


But the progressive socialist left then loses any grounds to complain about unconstitutional actions. They can’t accomplish their goal of fundamentally transforming America outside the bounds of our rule of law.

It’s not up to the president—any president—to decide that he or she wants to do something without the legislative branch. In essence, that’s taking action without the consent of the governed. The American people elect representatives to be their voice, so any disregard of the legislative branch is a dismissal and disregard of the American people.

DACA is nothing more than a feel-good, ideological political tool based on identity politics. If anything, it advances the notion, which the left loves, that there are those above the rule of law. Just look at  sanctuary cities, counties, and states—the left’s agenda is apparently superior to our rule of law.

The hypocrisy of DACA is blatant. Who decides what constitutes being a “dreamer”? Yes, that sounds so nice, and again, it tugs at hearts. But I seem to recall in April 2009 that the same Obama behind DACA ended the D.C. school voucher program for deserving young, black, minority kids, and not a peep came from the progressive socialist left and the liberal progressive media.

The deduction is simple: The left chooses based on their politicized agenda. Funny, DACA was enacted in 2012, a presidential election year. That should tell you everything.




Inside the Poison Papers

“Poison Papers” is the sadly appropriate name for an online compilation of documents that reveal decades of government cover-ups on the use of toxic chemicals, collusion between the chemical industry and regulatory agencies, deceit, incompetence, fraud, and ultimately an utter lack of concern for life itself. 

By James Spounias

Carol Van Strum desired a simple life when she and her family moved to Oregon’s idyllic Siuslaw National Forest in 1974. Little did she know that she would become a curator of information indicting powerful chemical companies and government agencies, which resulted in the creation of an online library known as the “Poison Papers,” or that she would suffer personal tragedy as well.

Published by the Center for Media and Democracy and the Bioscience Resource Project, the Poison Papers lay out “a 40-year history of deceit and collusion involving the chemical industry and the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be protecting human health and the environment,” according to Peter von Stackelberg, a journalist who helped establish the online collection, as reported by Sharon Lerner on the news website “TheIntercept.com.”

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.

The saga began in the 1970s when Ms. Van Strum asked U.S. Forest Service employees to stop spraying herbicides in the area of her home. In one incident, her children had been directly doused as they fished in a nearby river.

Ms. Lerner reported: “Immediately after they were sprayed, Van Strum’s children developed nosebleeds, bloody diarrhea, and headaches, and many of their neighbors fell sick, too. Several women who lived in the area had miscarriages shortly after incidents of spraying. Locals described finding animals that had died or had bizarre deformities—ducks with backward-facing feet, birds with misshapen beaks, and blinded elk; cats and dogs that had been exposed began bleeding from their eyes and ears. At a community meeting, residents decided to write to the Forest Service detailing the effects of the spraying they had witnessed.”

Gideon Elite book cover

Ms. Van Strum thought, as any reasonable American would, once the agency knew how detrimental the spraying was “they wouldn’t do it anymore.”

She discovered that the herbicide used by the Forest Service contained an active ingredient used in Agent Orange, which even the U.S. military stopped using in Vietnam after it became known it caused serious harm to humans and the environment. Ms. Lerner reported that “between 1972 and 1977, the Forest Service sprayed 20,000 pounds of 2,4,5-T (an active ingredient in Agent Orange) in the 1,600-square-mile area that included Van Strum’s house and the nearby town of Alsea.”

The Forest Service refused Ms. Van Strum’s request, so she, along with her neighbors, took them to court, which resulted in a victory of sorts. A temporary ban was issued on the use of 2,4,5-T in 1977, and it was ultimately stopped in 1983, according to Ms. Lerner.

“We didn’t think of ourselves as environmentalists; that wasn’t even a word back then. We just didn’t want to be poisoned,” Ms. Van Strum said.

Tragically, Ms. Van Strum’s four children died in a 1997 home fire, which spread suspiciously quickly and was not investigated. Ms. Lerner reported: “Firefighters who came to the scene said the fact that the whole house had burned so quickly pointed to the possibility of arson. But an investigation of the causes of the fire was never completed.”

Today, Ms. Van Strum lives in an outbuilding next to the cleared area where her home once stood and has accepted the fact she will “never really know” whether foul play was involved.

Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., cofounder and director of the Bioscience Resource Project and director of the Poison Papers, explains how things got to the point where bureaucratic agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), don’t care about the public they are charged with protecting.

When agency scientists discover wrongdoing, such as fraud by major chemical companies, they “don’t do anything about it because they have to pass it up the line” to their senior administrator (and ultimately) to the president, who will have to take a stand against a toxic chemical and its producer, Dr. Latham told Todd Zwillich on WNCY radio on July 31.

Latham said bad news doesn’t travel up the agency, leaving a “closet full of skeletons,” which aptly describes the Poison Papers.

For instance, a company called Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) was responsible for up to 40% of all chemical safety tests.

Monsanto and other giants used this testing company, which got some media attention in light of a negative report issued by the Food and Drug Administration. Top bureaucrats had to “do something.”

Rebekah Wilce reported on “independentsciencenews.com” that testing animals would decompose so quickly that “their bodies oozed through wire cage bottoms and lay in purple puddles on the dropping trays” and that IBT invented an acronym “TBD,” later discovered to mean “too badly decomposed.”

Poison Papers documents reveal a secret meeting with the EPA, Canada’s Health Protection Branch, and top chemical companies on Oct. 3, 1978 at the Howard Johnson Motor Inn in Arlington, Va.

Government bureaucrats “kicked the can down the road,” giving IBT a chance to resubmit studies, according to Latham. He noted that, “Meanwhile, you’re not telling the public that the chemicals that they’re using in their households and yards and that are in their food have unsound tests behind them.. . . In some cases, 100% of the tests were unsound.”

Those who wonder what is causing so much illness, such as cancer, dementia, and other problems, may have an answer, and it lies in chemical exposure, said Latham.

The evidence continues to mount daily against big business and government.

If the words of those who poison and the bureaucrats who cover up and do nothing won’t convince us we need to take action, what will?

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine. To receive a free issue of Carotec Health Report—a monthly newsletter loaded with well-researched and reliable alternative health information—please write Carotec, P.O. Box 9919, Naples, FL 34101 or call 1-800-522-4279. Also included will be a list of the high-quality health supplements Carotec recommends.




NRA Gunning for ‘Fake News’ Flagship

The most recent video ad from the National Rifle Association targets The New York Times—or as NRA national spokesperson Dana Loesch calls it, the “old gray hag”—with a hard-hitting denouncement, telling the paper it is not “in any way truth- or fact-based journalism.”

By Dave Gahary

In a clear nod to the message this newspaper has been delivering since its inception, the country’s oldest “continuously operating civil rights organization,” the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), has the country’s “newspaper of record,” The New York Times, in its sights.

In a powerful, new 53-second video ad, the NRA unleashes a blistering, withering assault on the Times and uses spokesperson Dana Loesch to deliver its message.

Ms. Loesch (pronounced “lash”), who was hired in June of last year to be the NRA’s national spokesperson, is an award-winning journalist and television and talk-radio conservative political commentator, appearing on Fox News, CNN, CBS, ABC, and HBO among other outlets. She’s intelligent, attractive, and easy to listen to, with a delivery reminiscent of the late populist patriot Jim Traficant.

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.

In the video ad, Ms. Loesch tells the Times:

We the people, have had it. We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We’ve had it with your constant protection of your Democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we’ve had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth- or fact-based journalism. Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow. We’re going to “fisk” [refute] The New York Times and find out just what “deep rich” means to this old gray hag, this untrustworthy, dishonest rag that has subsisted on the welfare of mediocrity for one, two, three, more decades. We’re gonna laser-focus on your so-called honest pursuit of truth. In short, we’re coming for you.

The video can be viewed online by searching for the title, “Dana Loesch: We’re coming for you New York Times.” It’s certainly worth the watch.

Needless to say, “the ad sparked a serious backlash, with critics claiming it promotes violence,” as “Fox News Insider” reported, and it led one CNN analyst to claim he “reported” the NRA for “hate speech.”

IRS Loses Cases

An earlier NRA video ad from April of this year also raised the ire of the left. This 59-second video is quite powerful as well, and targets the Marxist factions intent on the destruction of this once-great nation.

They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the “resistance,” all to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia, to smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding, until the only option left, is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness. And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with a clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m freedom’s safest place.

The soft terrorist group Black Lives Matter calls the ad “an open call to violence to protect white supremacy,” and a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama called it “revolting and frightening.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) went so far as to say: “I think the NRA is telling people to shoot us. Now might be the right time to cancel your membership.”

This video can also be viewed on the Internet by searching for the title, “Freedom’s Safest Place: Violence of Lies.” It, too, is certainly worth the watch.

No matter the so-called controversy created by the video ads, this is a good thing, and we say, “Hey, NRA, welcome to the real resistance. It took you long enough.”

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.




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.




Trump Wants Immigration Cut

The recently introduced RAISE Act–Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy–would utilize a merit-based point system to increase the English language fluency and technical skills level of foreign citizens accepted into the U.S. while at the same time decreasing the total number approved for entry. While countries around the world have just such a commonsense system in place, left-leaning groups in America are screaming “racism” and “discrimination” over the idea the U.S. would implement a similar strategy. 

By John Friend

In yet another effort to fulfill his campaign promises, President Donald Trump recently announced a major new immigration proposal designed to significantly reduce the number of legal immigrants entering the U.S. each year.

The president has been and remains a vocal critic of illegal immigration and has taken serious and commendable measures to crack down on it. However, legal immigration is arguably an even more urgent problem that needs to be addressed, as over 1 million legal immigrants enter the U.S. each year, and this proposal aims to tackle this issue head-on.

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.

The bill is known as the RAISE Act, which stands for Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act. It seeks to transform the current immigration paradigm to incentivize highly skilled immigrants by creating a merit-based system for prospective migrants, a stark departure from the previous immigration model that allowed family members and relatives of immigrants already settled in America to gain residency regardless of their skills, education, and economic prospects upon entering the U.S.

The Trump administration has been working closely with two key GOP lawmakers—Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.)—to craft the legislation and announced their proposal last week during a White House ceremony.

Trump explained to reporters that the proposed legislation “would represent the most significant reform to our immigration system in a half a century.”

During the presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump regularly criticized America’s broken immigration system, which he correctly argued has harmed America’s economy and its workers, jeopardized American national security, and facilitated the resettlement of millions of largely unskilled, uneducated immigrants who have little to offer the U.S. economy.

“As a candidate, I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers and taxpayers, and that’s why we are here today,” Trump told reporters during the White House ceremony announcing the legislation.

The bill’s proponents argue that it will “spur economic growth and help raise working Americans’ wages” by “ending chain migration, giving priority to the most highly skilled immigrants from around the world, and reducing overall immigration by half,” according to a fact sheet released by Cotton and Perdue.

“Only 1 out of every 15 U.S. immigrants come here because of their skills, and we do not prioritize the ultra high-skilled immigrants who spur innovation, create jobs, and make America more competitive,” the fact sheet contends. “At the same time, the United States accepts 1 million immigrants annually—the equivalent of adding the entire state of Montana each year—and most are low- or unskilled. A generation-long influx of low-skilled immigrant labor has put downward pressure on the wages of working Americans, with recent immigrants’ wages hardest hit.”

The bill seeks to upend America’s disastrous immigration policy by tackling these issues head-on.

The RAISE Act would establish a skills-based points system that prioritizes visa applicants based on a number of important factors, including their education, English-speaking ability, job offers, and overall economic prospects. It would also outright eliminate granting visa preference for the extended family members and relatives of immigrants already settled in the United States, and would eliminate the State Department’s so-called “Diversity Visa Lottery,” which the bill’s authors argue is “plagued with fraud” and “advances no economic or humanitarian interest.” Finally, the bill would limit the total number of refugees seeking permanent residency each year to 50,000.

“Immigrants coming here on skills-based visas will be better educated, more skilled, more fluent in English, have more working-age years ahead of them, and have a stronger entrepreneurial spirit,” proponents of the bill contend. “They will have a greater shot at becoming successful Americans, which will work to the benefit of all Americans in the form of an expanded and more competitive economy.”

The legislation has been praised by a number of conservative groups and leaders as well as a variety of immigration think tanks that favor more restrictions on immigration, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, NumbersUSA, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, while Democrats, the radical left, and a variety of ethnic lobbying organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have hysterically condemned the proposed legislation.

“This proposed legislation is cruel, anti-family, and un-American,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL, stated in response to the RAISE Act. “These are the types of policy markers that exacerbate immigrant bashing and nativist attitudes in this country. Diversity is our country’s strength and immigration has made America great.” Greenblatt and other opponents of the bill have pledged to “work hard against this cruel legislation.”

A number of prominent Republicans have also voiced their suspicion and outright hostility toward the RAISE Act, complicating matters for the president. Passing the legislation will no doubt prove to be a challenge, as has virtually everything else Trump has attempted to accomplish.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




Monsanto Caught Red-Handed

Despite the mega-corporation’s desperate attempts to keep company secrets secret, internal emails written by top Monsanto executives that were gathered during the discovery phase of a lawsuit now underway have been unsealed. What did this treasure trove of darkness reveal? The claim being made by hundreds of plaintiffs in the current combined cases in federal court is not nonsense, as the company has long insisted. These executives did indeed cover up the known carcinogenic dangers of Roundup. Will the U.S. Congress and the federal agencies responsible for Americans’ health and safety finally ban the substance, as the European Union, Sri Lanka, El Salvador and others have wisely done?

By James Spounias

The evidence against Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicides containing glyphosate may not get any clearer, even to the thickest-headed believers of Roundup’s safety.

As reported by this writer earlier this year in American Free Press, Monsanto is being sued by individuals in federal court in San Francisco, on the basis that its herbicide Roundup brought on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in individuals.

Documents released by one of Monsanto’s law firms cast a dark shadow on the company’s knowledge of the danger of Roundup and its main ingredient, glyphosate. Monsanto claims that the documents were released against attorney-client confidentiality. The law firm countered that Monsanto did not properly protect the documents in question, and the documents have now been made public, irrespective of the quibbling of lawyers.

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.

Monsanto fought releasing these and many other documents, but now that they’re out, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, Scott Partridge, argues that they include “some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” which don’t affect “the substance and science,” reported The New York Times on Aug. 1.

One can judge the seriousness of Partridge’s assurances of safety versus the mother lode of admission made in following emails. The Times notes a Monsanto scientist wrote in a 2001 email, “If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react—with serious concern.”

The story also quotes a 2002 email in which a Monsanto executive wrote, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies—Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

This 2002 snippet corroborates this writer’s Dec. 9, 2016 American Free Press story that quoted Dr. Robin Mesnage, a cancer expert with the Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics at King College in London, who provided evidence for the statement that adjuvants make glyphosate 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Also, in the Sept. 18, 2015 issue of American Free Press the fact that adjuvants make glyphosate worse was explained by this writer, quoting professor Robert Belle who stated “it would be necessary to look more closely at the numerous additives that go into [Roundup] and their interaction,” in light of the fact that glyphosate, not Roundup, was registered in Europe. Roundup, again, includes adjuvants that make glyphosate more dangerous.

Another gem of a snippet, written by a different Monsanto executive in a 2003 email, is included in the Times’s Aug. 1 story: “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen . . . we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.” Yet the same executive added, “We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”

No reason to “infer” Roundup would cause cancer flies in the face of data released as early as 1981 suggesting that glyphosate does cause cancer, according to information leaked by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Is there enough evidence to initiate a criminal investigation in light of these emails?

Mike Papantonio, a noted American trial lawyer, author, and host of “America’s Lawyer” on RT, believes so, saying the Department of Justice has these facts and can issue subpoenas and indictments.

“But you watch,” Papantonio told Thomm Hartmann on RT’s “The Big Picture” on Aug. 4. “They won’t do it,” suggesting that corporations of Monsanto’s stature will at worst get a “slap on the wrist” via fines.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have evidently been completely bought by Monsanto and other substantial corporations that, not so ironically, are closely tied to the six corporations that run the media.

The alternative media has reported extensively on the vast dangers of glyphosate, particularly how it disrupts gut-bacteria and how its introduction and proliferation correlates to numerous disease states, such as autism and many other conditions, as reported by Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel.

Will these latest admissions by Monsanto finally trigger a tipping point at which polluters and government toadies begin to be brought to heel?

Spread the word and be part of the worldwide movement to make it happen.

RELATED: Glyphosate & Roundup Tied to Serious Health Problems

Glyphosate, an ingredient in Monsanto’s Round up, impairs male offspring reproductive development, according to a study published in the Archives of Toxicology, where study authors concluded “maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters.” Keep in mind that we’re literally drinking, breathing, and swimming in glyphosate (it has contaminated streams, rivers, and lakes across the U.S.). In a 2015 study published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction, the authors detailed how pesticides, among other factors, lower testosterone levels, leading to reproductive dysfunction and infertility. What was fairly unknown 20 years ago is now common today, with younger and younger generations of men and women facing hormonal and reproductive issues, much more so than in the past. —CAROLE VALENTINE, Carotec co-founder




Sheriff Arpaio Announced Guilty of Criminal Contempt in Unprecedented Move by Judge

The non-jury trial of former Maricopa County “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio concluded with the judge announcing her guilty decision via electronic communication, rather than by reading the verdict aloud during a hearing with the defendant in attendance, and omitted significant portions of evidence in reaching her conclusion. One defense attorney says this unprecedented and unconstitutional action is grounds for an appeal.

By Mark Anderson

PHOENIX, Ariz.—Former Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on July 31 was found guilty of misdemeanor criminal contempt—for what the government claims was his willful decision to disregard a 2011 federal injunction, issued to bar him from rounding up illegal aliens during his time as sheriff of a border county. And that county is often nearly overrun by the mass migration of illegal aliens.

This federal district court verdict came down sooner than defense attorneys expected, amid other twists and turns in this case. However, there’s a story behind the story that few media outlets are discussing: According to the defense, the verdict was announced in a manner that’s unconstitutional and against important legal precedent.


Accordingly, Arpaio plans to appeal this decision of Judge Susan Bolton, who issued her verdict after a brief non-jury trial that ran four days in late June and concluded July 6. Arpaio had unsuccessfully sought a jury trial.

When this AFP writer asked one of the defense attorneys, Mark Goldman, if “ruled from the chamber” would be a better description of Judge Bolton’s decision-making process, Goldman agreed that was a perfect way to define such a back-room manner of carrying out “justice.”

A July 31 press release from the defense clarified: “Judge . . . Bolton violated the U.S. Constitution by issuing her verdict without reading it to the defendant in public court. Her verdict is contrary to what every single witness said in the case. Arpaio believes that a jury would have found in his favor, and that it will.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More.

Goldman, who’s been an attorney for 29 years, also told AFP: “We expected more time because it’s improper for her to just send it [her decision] out [via Internet] without a court hearing. I’ve never seen anything like it before. There’s a [previous] court of appeals case where the defendant has the right to be present during sentencing.”

What’s especially interesting is that the first indication to the defense that the judge had ruled at all—since her decision was expected to come later—came when reporters called the defense seeking comment, before the team had even learned of the verdict. Goldman explained that a July 31 court-issued “internal electronic communication” addressed to the defense, time-stamped 11:08 a.m. Mountain Standard Time, arrived after those media calls.

“The media was tipped off,” he said, adding that the ruling establishment that excuses the virtually unrestrained entry of illegal aliens into the U.S., many of whom commit additional crimes some of which are serious, has “won the battle but not the war.”

So, in summary, verdicts are to be conveyed at a hearing, with the defendant present, during which the judge reads the verdict aloud. Citing legal precedent, Goldman shared the following excerpt from legal sources:

             In United States v. Canady, 126 F.3d 352, 360 (2d Cir. 1997), the Second Circuit specifically found that “the district court’s deliberate decision to mail its decision to the parties rather than reconvene the proceedings to announce its verdict in open court violated both his right to be present at all stages of his trial and his right to a public trial.” The defendant “first learned that he had been convicted two weeks later by reading a newspaper.” . . . . “A leading principle that pervades the entire law of criminal procedure is that, after [an] indictment [is] found, nothing shall be done in the absence of the prisoner.” . . . . “The right [to be present] extends to all stages of trial, including the return of the verdict, to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by [the defendant’s] absence.” . . . . The Second Circuit also specifically found that this doesn’t just apply to jury verdicts, it applies to bench verdicts, too. It remanded to the district court for it to reconvene with the defendant present and publicly announce the verdict.

Also, the official record of Judge Bolton’s ruling is larded with remarks that the fact Mexican nationals, Central Americans, and others were entering the U.S. illegally, by itself, does not meet the threshold at which Maricopa Sheriff’s deputies under Arpaio should’ve been allowed to arrest illegal aliens and turn them over to federal authorities, as was done.

Gideon Elite book cover

Judge Bolton thus basically scolded the Sheriff’s Department for not limiting its roundups to those who entered the country illegally.

Asked why the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not intervene in The United States of America v. Joseph M. Arpaio, where the defendant is well-respected by President Trump but was targeted under the Obama White House, Goldman said the DOJ lawyers who initiated this case are the same ones who continued to prosecute it, even after the new attorney general had taken office.

“It’s hard to walk into the DOJ and reverse the course of public prosecutions,” he said, adding that he had written to Sessions to inform him that Arpaio was being sued under “the wrong statute,” even while Sessions, on the one hand, disagrees with sanctuary cities and believes local police should aid in apprehending illegal aliens and hold them for federal custody. Yet Sessions didn’t help Arpaio in return for having been a good lawman and carrying out apprehensions in the same manner.

Moreover, while Judge Bolton’s written ruling, at face value, makes it sound like Arpaio willfully defied the 2011 injunction, including snippets of his comments quoted in various news reports, Goldman said the judge’s “findings of fact are not supported by the record, including trial testimony and documentary evidence.”

Furthermore, the judge is seen as having omitted most or all testimony that mitigated against her narrative that Arpaio defied the injunction, including the testimony of Tim Casey, an outside lawyer retained by Arpaio’s Sheriff’s Department who received free reign from the department to communicate with all its employees on injunction compliance. And the Human Smuggling Unit within the department had unfettered access to Casey. Arpaio, from this vantage point, simply entrusted injunction compliance to others and carried out his duties as he saw fit, not having been advised to do otherwise.

However, Casey allegedly had reasons in court to protect himself more than he did Arpaio. But still, when called to the stand by the prosecution, he admitted during cross-examination by the defense that the injunction was ambiguous and not clear and definitive, as the prosecution argued and Bolton ruled. The catch, however, is that Judge Bolton, defense attorneys say, omitted Casey’s testimony and that of just about everyone else who countered the “defiant Joe” meme.

Notably, while Arpaio is generally expected to get six months behind bars—if sentencing proceedings take place Oct. 5 as planned—the defense, while appealing the verdict, is asking for the sentencing date to be held later.

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




Permanently Disabled Louisiana Deputy Sues Leaders of Black Lives Matter

A Louisiana deputy sheriff, permanently disabled when he was shot three times by an angry, deranged former U.S. Marines sergeant during a Baton Rouge protest-turned-riot, has sued Black Lives Matter and five of its leaders. The lawsuit claims they “caused or contributed to” the violence and encouraged the “militant anti-police national organization.” The rising number of civilians being needlessly killed by law enforcement personnel must be brought under control immediately, but encouraging “disdain, hatred, and violence against police” and violent rioting and shooting is certainly not the right way to address this urgent problem. 

By John Friend

On July 17 of last year, Gavin Long, a former U.S. Marine sergeant who was sympathetic towards the Black Lives Matter movement, ambushed police officers in Baton Rouge, La., killing three officers and injuring three more. Long was eventually shot 45 times by officers in the shootout, and died at the scene.

In a suicide note, Long lamented that he would be “vilified by the media and police” for his actions.

“Unfortunately,” Long wrote, “I see my actions as a necessary evil that I do not wish to partake in, nor do I enjoy partaking in. But must partake in, in order to create substantial change within America’s police force and judicial system.” He also noted that he must “bring destruction” upon “bad cops as well as good cops in hopes that the good cops (which are the majority) will be able to stand together to enact justice and punishment against bad cops.”

The horrific ambush came less than two weeks after a Baton Rouge police officer shot and killed Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man whose death sparked outrage in the black community. Sterling was killed outside a local convenience store after he physically struggled with officers and refused to obey their commands. Philando Castile, yet another black man, was shot and killed by a police officer in a suburb of Minneapolis a day later.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The controversial police shootings sparked a number of protests across the country, many of which were instigated, organized, and led by the Black Lives Matter movement. A major protest in Dallas turned violent when Micah Johnson, a black Army veteran who was upset over the police shootings in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis, ambushed local law enforcement officers there, killing five officers and injuring seven others.

Long traveled from Kansas City, Mo. to Baton Rouge roughly ten days after the Dallas ambush with the direct intention of violently confronting officers there.

Now, one of the injured officers in Baton Rouge is suing the Black Lives Matter movement and its most prominent leaders, accusing them of not only inciting violence against law enforcement officers across the country, but actually encouraging and justifying it.

The East Baton Rouge Parish deputy, who is not identified in the lawsuit, is a 42-year-old father of two children who had over 18 years of experience working in law enforcement. During the ambush, he was shot in his abdomen, his left shoulder, and the left side of his head, and as a result is permanently disabled; his intestines are permanently damaged, and he now has to wear a colostomy bag. The officer has had multiple surgeries, has suffered extensive brain damage, has reoccurring infections, and is constantly struggling for his life, according to the lawsuit.

Gideon Elite book cover

The lawsuit charges Black Lives Matter and some of its most prominent spokespersons with inciting and encouraging the sort of violence that resulted in the ambushes in both Dallas and Baton Rouge. The violence committed against the officer, the lawsuit alleges, was “caused or contributed to” by the leaders of Black Lives Matter, a “militant anti-police national organization.” DeRay Mckesson, Johnetta Elzie, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi are specifically named in the lawsuit as representing and leading the Black Lives Matter movement, who used their organization, social media platforms, and public media appearances to instigate and incite violence against police officers, the lawsuit contends.

“At least eleven police [officers] have been shot dead and at least nine more wounded by BLM protesters, activists, and/or supporters,” the lawsuit argues. “The leaders of BLM and Defendants, not only, incited the violence against police in retaliation for the death of black men shot by police but also did nothing to dissuade the ongoing violence and injury to police. In fact, they justified the violence as necessary to the movement and war.”

The lawsuit outlines the history of the Black Lives Matter movement, names its leaders and their subversive, radical actions, and documents the violence, destruction, and mayhem caused since the movement’s inception. BLM and its leaders must be held responsible for the officer’s injuries because they encouraged “disdain, hatred, and violence against police” at the various protests and demonstrations organized by BLM across the country, as well as on social media and in media appearances, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of attorneys, including Donna Grodner, who previously filed a separate lawsuit against McKesson on behalf of yet another Baton Rouge police officer who sustained injuries during protests that took place in Baton Rouge in the aftermath of Alton Sterling’s death. Grodner was contacted by American Free Press, but refused to comment on the case at this time.

The lawsuit is requesting $75,000 in damages to be paid out to the injured officer and his family.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




Clinton Researcher Commits Suicide Before Releasing Info on Crime Couple

Longtime Republican political operative and private equity industry manager from the Chicago area Peter W. Smith was found dead of alleged suicide 10 days after being interviewed by mainstream media about his investigation of Hillary and Bill Clinton. Sadly, information that would confirm or deny his suicide is not being released by the Chicago police or the coroner. Will Smith become simply one more open-ended mystery in the long string of individuals who’ve died under questionable circumstances after publicly revealing Clinton wrong-doing?

By Mark Anderson

Considering the sordid history of political intrigue and foul play surrounding Hillary and Bill Clinton, the rather mysterious death in Rochester, Minn. of a longtime investigator of the Clintons isn’t generating anything close to the level of public interest it deserves.

What’s worse is that national TV-media outlets evidently are blacking out news about investigator Peter W. Smith’s “suicide” and how and why he died in mid-May.

This broadcast-news suppression is even harder to explain considering several sizable newspapers and social media have to some extent covered Smith’s apparent “suicide.” Yet, the national TV networks did not run with the story, even as they obsess nonstop over flimsy Trump-Russia “collusion” allegations.

The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, took the lead in publishing reports on Smith’s research on Hillary, having interviewed Smith just 10 days before he was found dead. Smith is reported to have left a suicide note, stating that he took his own life at age 81 due to ill health. Smith allegedly had traveled to Rochester to visit the famous Mayo Clinic.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

The official explanation: In Rochester’s Aspen Suites Hotel on May 14, Smith did himself in by putting a plastic bag around his head and pumping the bag full of helium from a propane-style tank, to displace the oxygen and asphyxiate himself. At least that’s what police, a funeral home employee, and some mainstream newspapers, including The Chicago Tribune, have reported.

And in the note that police claim they found, Smith reportedly “apologized to authorities and said that ‘no foul play whatsoever’ was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a ‘recent bad turn in health since January 2017’ and timing related ‘to life insurance of $5 million expiring.’ ”

Gideon Elite book cover

PROBED BOTH CLINTONS

Smith’s investigations of the Clintons covered a lengthy time period—back to Bill Clinton’s “Troopergate” sexual-scandal days as Arkansas governor and during the Clinton White House and its countless collusions, including Chinagate.

Chinagate saw well-connected Chinese businessmen enter the White House dozens of times to make financial arrangements—dare it be called bribery—for obtaining U.S. military missile-guidance technology for Chinese companies through Clinton, among other things that dwarf anything that President Donald Trump is being accused of.

But Smith’s latest project involved looking into Hillary’s emails from her time as secretary of state from 2009-2013. He had been poking around lately to get more information on over 30,000 emails that Hillary claimed she deleted simply because they contained personal matters.

What really matters here is what Hillary’s emails contain, not who hacked them. Hillary’s emails likely contain information exposing that foreign officials—government and/or corporate, etc.—donated money to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for political favors via Hillary’s secretary of state office.

CHICAGO MACHINE

The Tribune is among the relatively few newspapers that has sustained the probe into Smith’s research and seemingly sudden suicide, although, in so doing, this formerly intrepid newspaper, once operated by legendary anti-war conservative Col. Robert R. McCormick, appears prone to giving Chicago native Hillary Clinton considerable leeway.

Former President Barack Obama was incubated in the same Chicago political machine from which Hillary ascended—and where former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel serves as mayor. And there have been rumblings that Hillary may run for mayor.

The Tribune said it “obtained a Minnesota state death record filed in Olmsted County, saying Smith committed suicide in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic at 1:17 p.m. on Sunday, May 14.” However, an autopsy was carried out, but the Southern Minnesota Regional Medical Examiner’s Office “declined a Tribune request for the autopsy report and released limited information about Smith’s death.”

A spokeswoman for AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., listed in recovered documents as Smith’s insurance carrier, “had no immediate comment,” the Tribune also noted.

By not releasing the autopsy report, the coroner has made it harder for researchers to make an assessment of what happened to Smith independent of Minnesota authorities. Making matters worse, Smith’s body was cremated in Minnesota.

Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson did describe Smith’s death as “unusual.” A Rochester Cremation Services employee, from the funeral home that responded to the hotel’s call, added to the controversy by saying he recalled seeing a “tank” when he helped remove Smith’s body from the hotel room.

“The employee, who spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitive nature of Smith’s death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the coroner and police were there and that he ‘didn’t do a lot of looking around,’ ” the Tribune noted.

Police said they found a receipt from a local Walmart “time-stamped from the previous day, May 13 at 12:53 p.m.” for the purchase of “Helium Jumbo” tanks and other items. Yet because police, perhaps naively, feel that no foul play occurred, they apparently have not bothered to access Walmart security videos to see if Smith himself purchased the tanks.

Finally, police said that the two helium tanks in the room were draped with vinyl-covered ankle or wrist weights, the kind used for exercise.

“The report did not offer an explanation for the weights,” the Tribune added.

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