First Nevada Trial of Bundy Supporters Ends in Hung Jury

There is some good news to report today. The first trial of activists that stood up to the federal government in support of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy ended in a hung jury on Monday night, meaning federal prosecutors were unable to get convictions. The men are facing years in prison.

By Mark Anderson

LAS VEGAS, Nevada—In the first trial of the landmark Cliven Bundy property-rights case, the jury deadlocked on April 24, and U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro was forced to declare a mistrial, according to Roger Roots, an author and legal expert who’s been in the U.S. District courtroom in Nevada nearly every day of this trial. The trial started Feb. 6 and dragged on longer than expected.

Due to the hung jury, four of the six defendants—Richard Lovelien, Eric Parker, O. Scott Drexler, and Steven Stewart—“were nether acquitted nor convicted” of any of the serious conspiracy and other charges leveled at them by the federal government, Roots noted. The 12-member jury did not come close to convicting these men, voting 10-2 in favor of acquitting two of them, while splitting on the others, according to defense lawyers.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Defendants are being tried for their part in supporting longtime rancher Cliven Bundy in the now-legendary April 2014 standoff between armed federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents and the elder Bundy, four of the Bundy sons, and a host of supporters.

When the BLM showed up that spring to impound hundreds of Bundy’s cattle for his alleged unpaid grazing fees on public lands, several supporters traveled long distances to southern Nevada, near Bunkerville, to stand with Bundy in protest of federal land policies. The standoff was dubbed by some as “The Battle of Bunkerville,” though not a single shot was fired.

Notably, the federal indictment, which names a total of 17 defendants, contains 16 charges, mainly “conspiracy” counts, but not all the counts apply to everyone.

Gideon Elite book cover

The Bundy case has been divided into three trials, in order to make things more manageable for the federal government, which has been laboring to make its case—claiming that those who gathered with the elder Bundy pointed their weapons at well-armed federal officers in a “threatening” manner.

The government seeks to send all the defendants to prison—for life, if possible.

The defense maintains that Bundy’s supporters showed up to exercise their First and Second Amendment rights simply to protest BLM land policies.

According to Roots, the question of whether the government will re-try the four defendants not acquitted by this jury remained unanswered as of this writing, although the Arizona Republic’s April 25 edition claimed Judge Navarro is intent on re-trying them starting June 26—which is also the proposed starting date for the second trial. Roots remarked, “There’s no way that [schedule] is going to work.”

“Maybe you can’t call this [deadlocked jury] a victory for the Bundy side,” he added, “but the government’s ‘stock’ went down in this thing. And the feds, including the judge, are under a lot of pressure to try and provide speedy trials. You have to remember that this first group [of “less culpable” defendants] was supposed to be the ‘easy’ one for the government.”

Books by Sheriff Richard Mack

TWO CONVICTED

The jury did find the two others in the opening trial—Todd Engel and Gregory Burleson—guilty of some charges, with Burleson bearing the brunt.

Engel was charged with obstruction of justice and using interstate commerce to commit extortion, so he could possibly be sentenced to two years in prison. Any credit he may get for time already served behind bars would reduce his sentence, perhaps drastically.

The jury found Burleson guilty of assaulting federal officers, using a firearm to assault federal officers, threatening federal officers, using a firearm to threaten federal officers, obstruction of justice, interfering with interstate commerce by extortion (and using a firearm in that interference/extortion charge), Roots recounted. However, Burleson was spared conviction on any of the heavyweight conspiracy charges.

As noted earlier, the second trial is expected to start on June 26, three weeks beyond earlier estimates of June 5 or 6. Bundy and two of his sons, Ryan and Ammon, along with Ryan Payne and Internet journalist Pete Santilli, are the defendants in that trial. It is expected to be an exceedingly high-profile affair in which the bedrock fundamentals of federal land jurisdiction and control are likely to be rigorously debated.

The third and final trial is expected sometime in the fall, involving Bundy’s sons Mel and Dave, along with Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Brian Cavalier, Jason Woods, and Micah McGuire.

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




Who Was Really Behind Wiretapping Donald Trump and His Campaign Aides?

President Trump’s wiretapping claims have been proven true, according to analysis from John Kiriakou, the first government official to confirm that waterboarding was being utilized to interrogate al Qaeda captives. Kiriakou should know. He’s a former CIA analyst and case officer who spent his first eight years with the Agency as a Middle East analyst specializing in Iraq, with a top secret/sensitive compartmented information security clearance. He’s also a former senior investigator for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, counterterrorism consultant for ABC News, and author of The Reluctant Spy:  My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror (2009) and Doing Time Like a Spy: How the CIA Taught Me to Survive and Thrive in Prison (due out in May). 

By Dave Gahary

When President Donald J. Trump accused—via a series of “tweets” on March 4—Barack Hussein Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower, the fake news media went into overdrive to humiliate the billionaire real-estate developer-turned-president, plastering their papers and websites with vicious and vacuous “articles.” It got so bad that former New Jersey superior court judge, author, syndicated columnist, and senior judicial analyst for Fox News, Andrew Napolitano, was pulled off the air on March 21 over his statements regarding the wiretapping.

NWO in Action cover

Although Napolitano was back in front of the camera by March 29, he stood by his claim that Obama “went outside the chain of command” by using Britain’s security service, GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), “to surveil then-President-elect Trump.” Of course, GCHQ denied Napolitano’s allegations by calling them “nonsense” and “utterly ridiculous.”

The only trouble is—for the surveillance state and the fake news media, that is—the president and the judge were right.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

On April 13, the UK’s Guardian admitted that “GCHQ was digitally wiretapping Trump associates, going back to late 2015.” In fact, the U.S. non-profit news media watchdog Accuracy In Media (AIM), which analyzed the Guardian report, stated: “President Trump’s claim of being ‘wire tapped’ has been vindicated. Indeed, the surveillance is far more extensive than even he suspected at the time.

“Based on the new disclosures,” continued AIM, “we can safely conclude that the world’s most advanced and extensive system of computerized espionage was indeed used against him and people he worked with, for political purposes, with the knowledge and approval of top Obama officials,” including Obama’s Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John O. Brennan and National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice.

In order to gain a more complete understanding of this matter, American Free Press conducted an exclusive interview with former CIA analyst and case officer, former senior investigator for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, counterterrorism consultant for ABC News, author, and married father-of-five John Kiriakou, the first government official to confirm that waterboarding was being utilized to interrogate al Qaeda captives.

Listen to AFP’s interview with former CIA analyst John Kirakou by clicking the image below

 

In waterboarding, water is poured over a cloth that covers the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive. The water causes the individual to experience the sensation of drowning, which can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, and other physical injuries. That does not include the psychological effects it can have on the individual being tortured.

“I spent 15 years with the CIA; the first half in analysis, the second half in counterterrorism operations,” Kiriakou told AFP, and “left the CIA in 2004 and went into the private sector.”

Kiriakou detailed the blowback from telling the truth.

“In 2007, in an interview on ABC News, I blew the whistle on the CIA’s torture program,” he began. “I was investigated for four years for my revelations, and I ended up going to prison for two years, from 2013 to 2015.”

AFP asked if he thought Brennan and Ms. Rice had orders to surveil Trump.

“I’m not sure that I’m so cynical to say that an order was made to surveil Trump and people associated with the Trump campaign,” he said. “I think that once the CIA and NSA [National Security Agency] realized that the people they were surveilling were in touch with Trump and the Trump campaign, or were senior officials of the Trump campaign, they decided to continue down that road.”

Kiriakou explained how surveillance works in U.S. intelligence and how Ms. Rice may have been involved.

Liberty Stickers

“Let me talk specifically about Susan Rice, because I think this is really the crux of the whole thing,” he said. “Susan Rice is not an analyst at the CIA. Susan Rice was a political figure. She was an important political figure, but she was a political appointee of the Obama White House. It is absolutely unheard of for someone at Susan Rice’s lofty, vaunted position to pick up the phone and call NSA and ask for an unmasking. What possible use would she have for that unmasking? She’s not doing the analysis for the rest of the community. She was just curious. Well, what she did was not necessarily illegal, but it was certainly unethical, absolutely unethical.”

Although the NSA has a wide berth to surveil people outside the U.S., there are allegedly legal barriers to doing the same to U.S. citizens. If, while monitoring a foreign national, NSA picks up communications from a U.S. citizen, its practice is to “mask” the identity of the U.S. person. Hence, “unmasking” means to reveal the identity of the U.S. person.

Kiriakou explained why he believes Trump was surveilled and what the president should do about it.

“I think that it’s part of a bigger problem, and that problem is the overreach of our intelligence services,” Kiriakou told AFP. “So the bottom line for me is: Were the CIA, the NSA, and perhaps other U.S. intelligence services taking what might be an illegally deep look at the Trump campaign? I think actually that the answer is yes, and I think that the president really needs to push this to the next level and appoint a special prosecutor. I think this story is important enough, and goes directly to our own civil liberties, that the president does need to appoint a special prosecutor and let the cards fall where they may.”

Kiriakou pinned the blame squarely on the shoulders of the previous administration.

“We know that Obama was overreaching, and it wasn’t just Obama; it was pretty much everybody that Obama surrounded himself with,” he said. “I think the American people are owed an explanation and that really as a country we need to get to the bottom of this story. I think that if we had a special prosecutor really digging down into the depths of what was going on at the CIA, we would find crimes against the American people and crimes against our own government that we haven’t even begun to discuss, with John Brennan there at the very top of it all.”

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.




Trump Signs ‘Buy American, Hire American’ Order

President Donald Trump just signed an executive order encouraging businesses in the U.S. to put American workers first and hire them before foreign applicants.

By Mark Anderson

Donald Trump, in one of his first acts as president, pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now he has taken another action that puts Americans and their economic destiny first. On April 18, the president traveled to Kenosha, Wisc., to visit the headquarters of American tool manufacturer Snap-on Inc. While there, he signed an executive order dubbed “Buy American, Hire American.”

The new executive order, among other things, directs the Labor, Justice, Homeland Security, and State departments “to propose new rules to prevent immigration fraud and abuse,” according to a Business Insider article. Those departments are expected to be tasked with recommending necessary changes so that H-1B employment visas are awarded only to “the most skilled or highest-paid applicants,” not to less-skilled classes of workers representing the cheap labor that exerts downward pressure on wages, a common criticism of the existing program.

Trump’s order is also reportedly designed to help strengthen requirements that American-made products be used in certain grant-funded federal transportation and construction projects. That’s timely, considering Trump wants to spend $1 trillion on badly needed nationwide infrastructure projects.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is expected to review “how to close loopholes in enforcing the existing rules.” He will review rule waivers tucked away in free-trade agreements that are notoriously anti-labor. If it’s determined that the waivers do not benefit the U.S., administration officials are saying, the rules will be renegotiated or revoked.

Via a lottery approach, approximately 85,000 H-1B visas are distributed annually. Many go to technology companies, which often claim the U.S. has a shortage of skilled technology workers.

However, American technology employees have been laid off nationwide, replaced by H-1B visa holders. Rubbing salt in the wound, these laid-off workers are in some cases required to train their replacements or lose severance packages.

Trump’s executive order appears to be a move in the right direction, fulfilling his pledge to rework the economy toward “made in USA by American workers,” but there are lingering concerns. H-1B critic Ronil Hira, a Howard University public policy professor, said of Trump’s new order, “It’s not as aggressive as it needs to be.”

On Capitol Hill, a bill by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would require companies seeking H-1B visas to first make a good-faith effort to hire Americans, something members of Congress have considered previously, with unimpressive results.

Readers are asked to call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 225-3121 and demand that employment-visa changes must have teeth and truly put Americans first.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




Group Seeks to Reset Climate Policy, Debunk Phony ‘Science’

With Trump’s election, scientists, academics, and other experts who question the politically correct “anthropogenic climate change” theory are on the winning side–for now. Roy Harvey reports on presentations at a recent policy conference in the nation’s capitol, where 300 of these skeptics gathered.

By Roy Harvey

WASHINGTON, D.C.—On March 23-24, some 300 scientists, academics, and other experts assembled in the nation’s capital at the Heartland Institute’s 12th international conference on climate change, titled “Resetting U.S. Climate Policy.” The goal was to throw out agenda-driven science and policy and have an honest discussion about what is really happening with the world’s weather.

Only a year ago, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked the FBI to prosecute some of these very experts as “climate change deniers.” But, today, assembled here were some of the men and women Donald Trump had turned to for advice on climate issues during his presidential campaign. With Trump’s victory, these scientists are now on the winning side—at least in theory.

Lord Christopher Monckton donned a red “Make America Great Again” hat before telling attendees in his keynote speech: “I am delighted that, against all odds, the Republicans prevailed, because they have been the party that has had a debate within their ranks about climate. [They concluded] what is going on in climate science is unacceptable, and that the drastic increases in the cost of electricity and gasoline as a result of trying to make non-existent global warming go away would hit the poorest hardest. And no small part of the reason why Mr. Trump did so well in the rustbelt states . . . is that they knew he was on their side. He spoke for the ordinary working man.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Another expert who spoke at the conference was Myron Ebell, appointed by Trump to head his energy and environmental issues transition team. In fact, several of the conference speakers were also part of Trump’s transition team.

One of them, Steven J. Milloy, author of Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA and Junk Science Judo, told attendees: “Junk science [and] bad science, used to advance a special agenda, is really government-wide. . . . The bulk of [federal] programs are fueled by junk science. When government gets involved in science, it politicizes it, and when you politicize it, you pervert it.”

Liberty Stickers

Those not paying attention to details of the president’s plans to reform the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fear cuts will mean poorer air and water quality. But just the opposite is true, according to Milloy.

He explained: “When I started working on EPA issues in the 1990s, the environment had largely been cleaned up. Since that time, the EPA has engaged in just horrible regulation based on junk science. What President Trump wants to do, and [EPA Director] Scott Pruitt is tasked to do, is to bring EPA back into acting legally and lawfully. That does not include reducing or rolling back actual environmental protections. It’s about rolling back the overregulation, and that’s not going to affect the environmental quality one little bit.”


Heartland Institute president Joe Bast shared his optimism: “This is a second chance for us to get our energy and our environment policies right. . . . We have a president who is willing to speak out and say the science is not settled. . . . When the president uses his bully pulpit to make a point about climate change, that is huge—that’s a game changer.”

Roy Harvey is the founder of Snowshoe Films. You can find out more about his great videos at snowshoefilms.com.




Complaint Alleges Southern Poverty Law Center Violated Non-Profit Tax Status

American Free Press readers will not be surprised to learn one of America’s leading hate-promoting groups, the SPLC, may be operating outside IRS rules for nonprofit organizations. This month, a formal  complaint was filed with the IRS alleging “flagrant” electioneering by the SPLC in opposition to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz during the last election season. Will the SPLC finally face the long-overdue consequences it so deserves and be forced to rein in its hate-speech? 

By Mark Anderson

The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a notoriously underhanded race-baiting organization that luridly labels anything counter to its extremist left-wing orthodoxy as “far-right,” hateful heresy. To the SPLC, there’s a “bigot” under every bushel basket.

So it’s not necessarily surprising to hear another group allege, with pretty solid evidence, that the SPLC “openly and repeatedly violated its non-profit tax status nearly 50 times during the 2016 presidential election cycle, participating in communication activities prohibited by the IRS in a ‘flagrant, continued and intentional campaign’ targeting then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and other Republican candidates.”

That strong allegation comes from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which on April 5 issued a news release announcing it has filed “a formal legal complaint” to the IRS based on allegations the SPLC has run afoul of the tax code.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed online at FAIR’s website, “FAIRUS.org.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

“The SPLC went way over the line in this last election. It publicly engaged in deep, deliberate, and unlawful participation during the 2016 presidential election cycle, flagrantly violating its non-profit tax status,” FAIR President Dan Stein alleges. “The IRS should investigate all of these instances, and take appropriate steps to either sanction [or] fine the SPLC, or remove its tax-exempt status as a public charity. We are alleging—via meticulously detailed documented evidence—that it repeatedly engaged in widespread, illegal electioneering in 2015 and 2016.”

The IRS grants several classifications that provide organizations with tax-exempt status, provided that the organizations stick to strict public-service guidelines under “charitable,” “educational,” and similar classifications required by the law. (The SPLC purports to be both charitable and educational.)

“Under the regulations, however, activities such as promoting or opposing certain political candidates for public office are absolutely not permissible communications for these types of privileged organizations. In other words, no electioneering—taking positions in favor of, or against, any active candidate for public office,” FAIR’s news release added.

According to Stein, the SPLC, via its website, including the site’s homepage, “overtly [tried] to directly discredit Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” repeatedly alleging that “Trump was unworthy of voter support.”

Stein added that the SPLC “used its tried-and-true formula of opinion-based smears and innuendos . . . to engage in blatant political activity masquerading as ‘teaching tolerance.’ ” FAIR’s complaint to the IRS therefore reiterates that “smearing by association” is a “primary” SPLC technique.Gideon Elite book cover

SPLC Electioneering Examples

FAIR cited what it called “flagrant examples of electioneering” that appeared on two SPLC regular online reports, “Hatewatch” and “The Intelligence Report,” during the presidential primary and the general campaign:

  • On Oct. 2, 2015, “Hatewatch” published “How the Candidates, the Haters, and the Media Have Cooked Up a Perfect Storm of Islamophobia.” The article mainly focused on Trump’s comments and positions, and charged Trump has “demonstrated how the fires of bigotry . . . keep escalating.”
  • The July 6, 2016 SPLC “Intelligence Report” featured a 13-page article by SPLC staffer Stephen Piggott titled “Hate in the Race,” which begins, “A remarkable level of vitriol has characterized the Republican contest for president.” The article, according to FAIR, contained at least 41 distinct unlawful and highly negative statements attacking then-Republican Party candidate and nominee Donald Trump or his campaign staff and supporters, and 14 similar distinct unlawful statements attacking former GOP candidate Ted Cruz.
  • A May 11, 2016 Hatewatch article titled “Donald Trump’s Continuing White Nationalist Problem,” also by Piggott, vaguely linked Trump to so-called white nationalists. The undefined term was “intended to discredit Mr. Trump as a presidential candidate,” FAIR says.
  • And on May 6, 2016, after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, a Hatewatch article by SPLC contributing writer David Neiwert was posted, headlined “Right-Wing Extremists Hail the Ascension of ‘Emperor Trump’ as GOP Nominee.”

IRS rules say organizations are not deemed educational if their “principal function is the mere presentation of unsupported opinion,” if they “fail to provide a factual foundation for the viewpoint or position being advocated,” or if they lack a “full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts” that “permit[s] an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion.”

Furthermore, organizations under the educational banner “must be organized and continuously operated for instructing the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the public,” FAIR explained, adding: “The SPLC, however, made numerous sweeping, opinion-based statements about the current president during his 2016 campaign, accusing him of being ‘embraced by right-wing extremists,’ ‘helping drive mainstream interest to racist memes,’ and manufacturing a ‘climate of fear’ which might ‘ultimately lead to [hate-based] violence.’ ”

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




ACLU Amassing Army to Take Down President Donald Trump

The supposed civil rights legal assistance group has veered far from its mission to defend the U.S. Constitution and is now building an army for the express purpose of taking down President Donald Trump.

By Dave Gahary

President Donald J. Trump didn’t just inspire 2016’s “silent majority” to get him elected to the highest office in the land; he’s also singlehandedly responsible for tripling (or doubling, depending on which “fake news” outlet you read) the membership rolls of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the premiere litigator that works “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

In fact, the election of Trump was such a boon for the ACLU that in the five days following the billionaire real estate developer’s stunning victory, “donations totaling $7.2 million have poured in, powered by 120,000 donors,” wrote the Los Angeles Times.

Liberty Stickers

“Since the election, we have seen the greatest outpouring of support [in] our nearly 100-year history, greater than the days after 9/11,” ACLU tweeted.

“Before, our membership was largely older and much smaller,” said the ACLU’s executive director, Anthony D. Romero. “Our members would provide us with money so we could file the cases and do the advocacy. What’s clear with the Trump election is that our new members are engaged and want to be deployed.”

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

ACLU plans to challenge Trump through a new campaign called People Power, which kicked off on March 11 and featured what they call “resistance training,” which was transmitted via video to “more than 2,300 local gatherings nationwide,” reported Reuters.

People Power’s website states:

On March 11, the ACLU is holding a Resistance Training. This event will launch People Power, the ACLU’s new effort to engage grassroots volunteers across the country and take the fight against Donald Trump’s policies not just into the courts, but into the streets. We’re organizing grassroots events in communities across the country to watch the livestream together. Please join us!

PeoplePower.org will use digital tools to communicate with and help train volunteers to resist President Trump’s unlawful policies across the country. The ACLU will promote ideas for action to defend sanctuary cities, resist deportation raids, oppose the Muslim ban, maintain Planned Parenthood funding and support other organizational priorities.

People Power marks “a major strategic shift for an organization that has traditionally focused on courtroom litigation,” Romero told Reuters. Around 135,000 people had signed up to take on Trump as of March 10.

Heading People Power is the ACLU’s new national political director Faiz Shakir, who was a senior adviser to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and a senior adviser to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), where he helped fight for gay and Muslim causes. Six of the group’s key organizers “were veterans of the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.),” wrote The Washington Post.

Founded in 1920 to protect freedom of speech for anti-war protesters, the ACLU is actually two separate organizations, although they share employees and office space: a 501(c)(4) social welfare group and a 501(c)(3) public charity. Although both organizations engage in litigation, the 501(c)(4) group is legally entitled to take part in unrestrained political lobbying, which is the arm that is attacking the U.S. president.

This is by no means the first time the ACLU has shown its true colors. In 2004, ACLU rejected $1.5 million in donations from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations because of the following language in their donation agreements:

By signing this grant letter, you agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make subgrants to any entity that engages in these activities.

Does that mean ACLU admits it is a terrorist organization?

Dave Gahary writes exclusively for American Free Press.




American Free Press Is Under Attack!

Dear American Free Press supporter:

Let’s be honest. As far as cash reserves go, the bank account of American Free Press is usually as empty as Mother Hubbard’s cupboard. We struggle every month to make ends meet, but always get the job done. We publish a real newspaper—not one loaded with the kind of fake news you get from the controlled media and so many “alternative” media outlets who don’t bother to check the facts. That’s right: Our bank account is small, but our staff and writers have the hearts of lions.

And though our print subscribership is relatively small and we are lucky to crack the top 75,000 websites in the world every year, we certainly get noticed by a lot of high-powered agitators.

Just recently, for instance, Internet giant Google informed us that they will no longer do business with us. On February 9, we received a termination notice from the brass at Google ending our advertising contract. The reason?  AFP is, in a nutshell, too politically incorrect for them. Incidentally, we were making just $144 a month from what is known as Google Ad Sense. Google Ad Sense monitors website traffic and discovered last year that AFP’s Internet site, staffed by just one part-time employee, had, on average, nearly 400,000 different people reading a grand total of over 1.7 million pages on our website every month.

Despite the small staff and the minimal budget, these are very good numbers for some of the “big boys,” let alone one small, independent newspaper fighting for its existence.

But Google didn’t care. They informed us our relationship was over—without the right of appeal—because of what they called a “site-wide violation of policy” related to articles and products they think are too hot to handle. Fine, we figured. What’s $144 a month in the grand scheme of things?

But then we thought we’d look a little closer. Recently, a wide-eyed, wet-behind-the-ears journalist named Tess Townsend, writing for a website named “Recode,” made a shocking admission. Google did not make this decision on a whim. No. This massive company was pressured into the move by an allegedly “non-profit” gang of “free speech watchdogs” called Media Matters for America, a group once sued by C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel for George H.W. Bush, for violating the rules of non-profit organizations by using their website as a platform to smear conservatives. In 2011, Gray sent a letter to the IRS alleging that Media Matters’s activities were not primarily educational, but instead “unlawful conduct.” He asked that the tax-exempt status of Media Matters be revoked! And it should have been.

But who is Media Matters, and why does it matter?

Media Matters for America was started in 2004 by a man named David Brock (the former boyfriend of James Alefantis of Comet Ping Pong Pizza fame). Their office space was initially supplied free of charge by John Podesta, with whose name you are no doubt familiar. And guess who gave her time as a volunteer consultant for Media Matters in the early days of its formation? None other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But let’s delve a little deeper. A non-profit organization like Media Matters, with a fancy website and a staff busting out of their D.C. offices (long-since moved out of the cramped office space supplied by Podesta) must have received funding from somewhere. But from where? And from whom?

It turns out that Media Matters got a big kick start with a $2 million donation from a group called MoveOn.org. You remember them, right? They’re the group that helps organize anarchistic rallies against Donald Trump and other conservative politicians and journalists, supplying logistics and funds so leftists of all stripes can shut down cities, tie up traffic, and keep hardworking people like you and me from getting to work so we can feed our families while groups like Black Lives Matter and ski mask-wearing hooligans can destroy the personal property of businesses, throw bricks through shop windows, physically attack people they don’t agree with, and even rain down rocks and stones on average Americans trying to attend conservative political rallies.

Hundreds of them were arrested during the Trump inauguration because, honestly, they could have killed people. And, according to D.C. police, they almost did. They have no concern for free speech. No concern for differing opinions. And they certainly don’t care a lick for anyone who won’t adopt their Marxist political agenda.

The Left definitely does not practice the “tolerance” it preaches.

But the plot thickens . . .

By the way, MoveOn.org is directly funded by one of the richest leftist troublemakers in the world. You guessed it. Hungarian-American George Soros. It’s clear that nothing goes on at MoveOn.org that slimeball Soros does not know about personally. According to a CNN report, Soros himself donated $1 million to Media Matters in its early stages. In a 2014 interview, founder Brock said Soros’s donations only accounted for “less than 10%” of the budget of Media Matters.

So, trust me when I say, there is a real move afoot to destroy free speech in America, led by some of the richest and best-funded billionaires and “advocacy” groups in the world.  And American Free Press has now become a focus of these powerful culture munchers—ones that don’t really like that you and I have opinions about things that are in stark contrast to theirs.

Yes, American Free Press is now on the front lines of a battle for freedom of speech. And what a battle it will be.

Am I exaggerating?  I don’t think so . . .
They ALL have axes to grind with AMERICAN FREE PRESS . . .

Does left-leaning Arianna Huffington have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Huffington, who went out of her way to commission a hit piece on American Free Press last year, was peeved when we wouldn’t just lie down and shut up after she trained both barrels of her smear machine at AFP. After she attacked us, we went on the offensive and exposed her as a fraud—a fraud who, judging from former employees, had more complaints from workers than the Wicked Witch of the West. Has she got money to burn? She sure does, as we’ll explain later.

Does John Podesta have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Did we hit a little close to home with our honest coverage of his strangely intimate involvement with Hillary?

Does Hillary Clinton have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Maybe a little. AFP sold literally thousands of copies of Hillary (And Bill)—Victor Thorn’s magnum opus on the crimes of the Clintons. Thorn is no longer with us, but he made his mark and ruffled that vulture’s feathers.

Does George Soros have an axe to grind with American Free Press? Well, it’s AFP that has consistently exposed his involvement in nearly every anti-American “protest” group out there, from Black Lives Matter to pro-abortion groups to anti-Trump rabble-rousers and to slimy outfits like Media Matters, that insist all dissenting viewpoints be crushed without mercy.

Now let’s do a little math . . .

• According to the website “How-Rich.com,” John Podesta is worth $12 million.

• According to “CelebrityNetWorth.com,” Arianna Huffington is worth $50 million.

• Bill and Hillary Clinton are alleged to be worth as much as $50 million. But we know that is a low-ball figure. According to The Washington Post (and we think we can trust them on this, but probably not for much else besides the weather and the sports scores), the Clintons have amassed a global empire including the Clinton Foundation that may be, in fact, worth $2 billion.

• And what about George Soros? According to Forbes magazine, Soros was worth, in 2017—now take a deep breath—$25.2 billion.

• And Google. You better sit down if you aren’t already. Larry Page and Sergey Brin are together worth a combined $498 billion!

• The aforementioned president of Media Matters, David Brock, by the way, makes (according to its non-profit tax form for 2011) more than $286,000 per year. Do you realize that would pay every single staff member and freelance writer AFP employs for an entire year?

That’s some high-octane pocketbook power—all trained on American Free Press.
But what’s the real reason “THEY” hate AFP?
Could it be because:

• AFP refuses to kowtow to these overlords of the mass media and politics?

• AFP refuses to run their cookie-cutter fake news stories and instead debunks them?

• AFP—with the support of our readers—consistently scoops them issue after issue?

• AFP actually checks facts before running with a story?

• AFP—alone among all independent news media—has managed to continue to publish a newspaper in print and on the web, on a shoestring budget, that consistently outperforms the largest media outlets in the world?

• AFP is not controlled by advertisers, lobbying groups or the CIA? If you know anything about “Operation Mockingbird,” you know the CIA has a long history of using the mainstream media to plant stories designed to condition the American public for war.

Is it possible American Free Press irritates the masters of the media more than any other news outlet in business today?

Well, whatever we are doing, the likes of those mentioned above apparently have a hive of African killer bees in their bonnets. They are determined to shut us up.

But guess what?

THAT’S NOT GOING  TO HAPPEN!

But we have to admit: There is only one way we can survive to win this battle. Fortunately, we have something all those billionaires and millionaires and media moguls don’t have . . . a dedicated group of subscribers and supporters—average Americans—who understand the importance of a truly independent media.  And you are one of these people.

You are all our dedicated partners in our effort to get the truth out.

We’re not asking for a billion dollars. Nor a million. Nor $100,000 . . .

We just want enough to keep on publishing, to keep on irritating the powers that be by not giving in. And we vow that we will keep publishing until we either drop dead or emerge victorious.

By surviving . . . we win.  And so does America.

Without American Free Press, what is there, really? Just a tiny handful of papers that are in the same boat as AFP. We can count them on one hand. And kudos to them as well.

But let’s be honest. Of those, AFP is the loudest, most effective independent voice for freedom in this country today that is not controlled by outside, un-American agitators.

As long as you like what we are doing and are willing to open your wallets every few months and send in whatever you can, we will not be silenced.

Your support means we will never be forced to crawl up to the altar of fake news and worship at the feet of the high priests of political correctness.

AFP may very well be the last real newspaper in America with any substantial voice.

But, without you, our voice could one day go silent. And that’s no lie.

We can’t let that happen!

Please click here to make a donation.

We’re not in it for the profit. We’re in it for America. And we know you are, too.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart,

– Paul Angel
Vice Chairman / Art Director / Production Manager / Chief Branding Officer
American Free Press

P.S. To the list of high-powered muckety-mucks who want to silence AFP, you can add the Anti-Defamation League (net assets of $90 million for 2015) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (currently worth more than $250 million).  They have been trying since we started to shut our doors—but have failed again and again.

P.P.S. While piecing together this request for assistance, I just got word from our webmaster that YouTube, the massive video channel, can be added to the list of companies that want our message censored. Worth between $26 billion and $40 billion, according to online estimates, YouTube has given us our first “strike” and suspended our ability to post videos on their site for 90 days. Why? One video we posted about the suppression of free speech in Canada is too politically incorrect!

Where does it stop? It’s time to draw our own line in the sand. . . .

TO DONATE:

Click here or…

Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free to charge a donation, Mon.-Thu., 9-5, or mail to AFP, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774.

If you would like to talk to an AFP staff member about donating, please call 202-544-5977. You can talk directly to me by calling that number and the operator will gladly transfer the call.




Tech Company Behind Russian Hacking Claims Forced to Roll Back Botched Reports

Despite retraction of the report by a DNC-employed cybersecurity company that was behind the much-trumpeted claims of Russian hacking, allegedly intended to undermine America’s democratic processes and put Donald Trump in the White House, claims of Russian meddling continue to be made by such influential neocons as Dick Cheney and John McCain. With or without evidence, the attempt to involve the U.S. in conflict with Russia continues. 

By John Friend

A U.S. cybersecurity firm employed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to investigate alleged hacking carried out by the Russian government and its proxies during the 2016 presidential election campaign has been forced to retract key findings in a report it used to substantiate allegations of Russian meddling and interference in American domestic politics as well as Ukraine’s conflict with pro-Russian separatists in the Crimea area.

The Deep State JFK-911 cover

CrowdStrike, utilized by the DNC to manufacture claims of Russian hacking against the DNC and Clinton campaign more generally in an effort to help Donald Trump triumph in the heated 2016 presidential election, released a report in December of last year asserting, among other things, that Russian actors hacked into a Ukrainian artillery application resulting in heavy losses of Ukrainian howitzers. The CrowdStrike report was originally based on data and information provided by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), an influential think tank based in London that researches political and military conflict.

However, IISS recently told Voice of America that CrowdStrike “erroneously” used its data as “proof of the intrusion” into the Ukrainian artillery application. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has also denied key findings of the report, and insists the hacking never even took place.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

CrowdStrike was one of the first cybersecurity firms to allege Russian actors were behind the hacking of the DNC. Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and CTO of CrowdStrike, has insisted a variant of the software utilized in the now discredited Ukrainian “hacking” was similar to the software utilized in the purported hacking of the DNC. The original report alleging Russian hacking into the Ukrainian artillery application, issued in December of last year and widely circulated and sourced in the mainstream corporate mass media, has now been significantly updated and revised as a result of media exposure.

The latest setback for a firm seen as instrumental in guiding elite political and media opinion on the veracity of alleged “Russian hacking” and interference in the 2016 presidential election in favor of President Trump comes as leading critics of Trump and key Democratic lawmakers struggle to substantiate their theories of covert Russian meddling in American politics.

Earlier this year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a report and briefed both Congress and President-elect Trump on its conclusions that Russia meddled in the presidential election. The report concluded Russia was involved in the hacking of the DNC and key officials in the Clinton campaign, including John Podesta. It alleged that, through its purported hacking, the Russian government sought to undermine and discredit established U.S. democratic processes and principles, wage cyberwarfare against key political actors, and engage in an elaborate disinformation campaign designed to harm the Clinton campaign and aid Trump.

That report, however, has been panned by many cybersecurity experts. They point out that it is government officials that worked under former President Barack Obama who have basically asked America to trust them when they claim they have connected the dots between the cryptic, shadowy DNC hackers and the Russian government.

Critics of the Trump administration also allege key officials and advisers close to the president have intimate ties to the Russian government and ruling establishment.

Thus far, allegations of Russian meddling and interference in the election, Russian hacking, and Russian ties to Trump appear to be unsubstantiated, overblown, and exaggerated. Many view the allegations as a means of discrediting and delegitimizing Trump and his populist, America-first agenda, with the ultimate goal of undermining his presidency resulting in his impeachment or removal from office. After all, the biggest cheerleaders for the Russian-hacking narrative are Democrats and establishment Republicans that remain antagonistic to Trump.

Still, the rhetoric regarding alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics emanating from leading political and media figures continues to heat up.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently characterized purported Russian interference in the election as an “act of war.”

“There’s no question there was a very serious effort made by Mr. [Vladimir] Putin and his government, his organization, to interfere in major ways with our basic fundamental democratic processes,” Cheney stated during a recent speech at the Economic Times’s Global Business Summit 2017 in New Delhi. “In some quarters, that would be considered an act of war. I think it’s a kind of conduct and activity we will see going forward. We know he’s attempted it previously in other states in the Baltics.”

Sen. John McCain, an influential Republican legislator, critic of Trump, and warmonger, has made similar remarks.

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




Rape of Teen in Maryland Highlights Dangers of Illegal Immigration

In Maryland, the rape of a 14-year-old girl in the high school boys’ bathroom by two older classmates, both of whom are illegal aliens, has drawn national attention. The tragic event highlights the need to address open borders and sanctuary city policies putting children and other innocent American citizens at risk.  

By John Friend

When President Donald Trump announced his bid for the presidency in June of 2015, he made headlines by making illegal immigration one of the main focuses of his campaign. He described the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. as having “lots of problems,” and said they are bringing drugs and crime to America. He also said many of them are rapists. His controversial remarks sparked outrage and hysteria among Democrats and leftist activists, who characterized Trump’s rational stance on illegal immigration as racist, discriminatory, and bigoted. A recent tragic news story in Maryland, however, has proven just how prescient Trump’s bold remarks have proven to be.

Two illegal aliens have been arrested and charged with the vicious rape of a 14-year-old girl in Montgomery County, Maryland, which sits just outside our nation’s capitol.

The two young men illegally residing in the U.S., identified as Henry Sanchez, 18, of Guatemala and Jose Montano, 17, of El Salvador, were placed in the 9th grade at Rockville High School as a direct result of liberal policies sanctioned by countless state and local governments across America.

Sanchez and Montano approached the young victim in the hallway, asking her to have sex. When the young victim refused, Sanchez and Montano forced her into the boys’ bathroom, where they proceeded to rape her in a bathroom stall. The two young men were arrested at school later that day. According to reports, Montano denied raping the young victim when asked by police about the allegations. However, forensic evidence found in the bathroom and presented in court documents make clear a rape did take place.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, is thankful this horrific story is gaining national media attention. Gheen, a strong critic of illegal immigration, argues tragic stories like this rarely make the national or even local news given how detrimental they are to the prevailing leftist narrative that illegal immigrants are simply looking for a better life and more opportunities.

“It’s a miracle that anyone is even hearing about this case, because first the victim had to report the crime, and a lot of crimes like this do not get reported,” Gheen recently stated. “Secondly, once it was reported, it had to make it out of a school system. And quite often, schools suppress the sharing of information like this. And then you have to get past the local media, which often strives to conceal the crime altogether, or to conceal the immigration status of the perpetrator.”

The story has gained national attention, forcing the spotlight on the issue of illegal immigration once again, and has many Americans outraged at the open borders and sanctuary policies enacted by local, state, and federal politicians, which put young children and innocent Americans at risk.

“These young men obviously had no fear of law enforcement,” Gheen argues. “They come from lands where there is no law enforcement. And they show they can come here and break laws with impunity, so why should they fear any boundaries, be they national or sexual boundaries? We hope that this unfortunate case will inspire President Donald Trump to honor his broken campaign promise to end DACA amnesty on his first day in office.”

John Friend is a writer, who lives in California. 




Google Scrubs Politically Incorrect Sites from Searches

Google, the world’s biggest Internet search engine provider, has decided it should “help” readers determine whether or not a search result is “safe” by applying “quality ratings.” In its latest move along the censorship path, Google is now using independent contractors to tag search results that may be “‘offensive or upsetting.” Not surprisingly, sites discussing alternative views of history, including of the Jewish “Holocaust,” are considered especially concerning.  

By Dave Gahary

The most visited website in the world, whose unofficial slogan was “Don’t be evil” until it was replaced by “Do the right thing,” is certainly not doing the right thing and is also acting quite evil. Google, the U.S. multinational technology company best known for its ubiquitous, eponymous search engine, is in a new business: tagging the Internet’s search results of alternative views of the historical event known as the “Holocaust.”

But it’s not just “Holocaust” revisionists Google’s after, but all “Jew haters,” “white supremacists,” and “racists”—or at least trying to ensure that Internet searches do not end up at websites Google has classified as such.

The UK’s Guardian reported on March 15, “Google is using a 10,000-strong army of independent contractors to flag ‘offensive or upsetting’ content, in order to ensure that queries like ‘did the Holocaust happen’ don’t push users to misinformation, propaganda, and hate speech.”

Although Google’s contractors have been utilizing a manual, titled “Search Quality Rating Guidelines,” at least since 2013, “describing every potential problem they could find with a given search query,” a new update to the book orders the censors to “flag” search results that could be “upsetting” or “offensive” to Web surfers.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Speaking of whiners, NBC News interviewed head-whiner of the hopelessly corrupt Southern Poverty Law Center, Heidi Beirich, who moaned to Google a few months ago “to update its algorithm to remove a result from a neo-Nazi website questioning whether the Holocaust happened.”

She told the fake news outlet about Google: “They’re moving away from self-reporting, relying on the public to tell you where there’s problems, and they’re talking about a systematic policy.”

The new system will not affect search results, but will, according to Google, be “used by Google to help judge the success of algorithm changes and . . . to train its machine-learning systems.” Yup, that’s right, artificial intelligence systems that ban human critical thinking.

Google—already scorned for its abuse of privacy, tax avoidance, antitrust behavior, censorship, and search neutrality—has been under additional pressure lately by critics claiming that its searches “promote extremist content.” The UK’s Guardian and Observer published a series of articles promoting this view recently, as well as complaining that it fails “to keep fake news and propaganda off the top of search results.” Of course, “fake news” is in the eye of the beholder.

Founded in 1996 and valued last year at over $133 billion, Google is now the largest subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., which has acquired over 200 companies since last December. Alphabet’s most well-known brand besides Google is YouTube, the video sharing tech company, acquired in 2006. YouTube is also notorious for its censorship of videos that threaten the powers-that-be.

It certainly is a brave, new world we are all on the precipice of, one that rejects free expression and personal responsibility and where those who cry the loudest prevail.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s “Underground Interview” series. See www.americanfreepress.net for more.




Israeli Teen Arrested for Making Bomb Threats to Jewish Centers

According to reports, a 19-year-old Jewish Israeli man has been arrested in Israel and is being charged with making “most” of the bomb threat calls to Jewish institutions since Jan. 1.

By John Tiffany

Since Jan. 1, over 100 bomb threats have been made against Jewish institutions, such as schools and community centers, around the world, including in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. The establishment immediately insinuated that “hateful Trump supporters” were terrorizing the Jewish community. Now, it turns out a 19-year-old Jewish man living in Israel, who holds dual citizenship in America and the Middle Eastern state, stands accused of making most of the threats.

The “cyberattack unit” of Israel’s fraud squad arrested the teenager March 23, it was reported in Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper. The arrest was based on information received from the FBI and other non-Israeli law enforcement agencies.

The motives of the crime are as yet unknown, said an Israeli police spokesman.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Israeli cops seized computers and other equipment the “primary suspect” allegedly used to make it hard for police to track the culprit to his lair. The suspect will remain in custody for at least the next seven days while the investigation continues.

Israeli Judge Amit Michles said, “. . . reasonable suspicion already exists at this stage that convincingly links the suspect to the calls that have been attributed to him . . . to different institutions around the world . . . some of which have led to panic.”

It is looking as if something like an insanity defense is contemplated.

The prisoner’s lawyer, Galit Bash, said: “This is a young man without a criminal record who from a young age suffers from severe medical problems. There is concern that his medical condition affects his cognitive functioning. Therefore, we asked the court to order that the young man be referred to a medical examination. The court accepted our claims and instructed the police to examine the young man’s medical condition.”

The 19-year-old was never enlisted in Israel’s usually mandatory army service because he was determined to be unfit to serve.

The waves of bomb threats all turned out to be hoaxes.

In “at least three” instances, bomb threats were also reportedly accompanied by destruction at Jewish cemeteries, including one in which more than 500 headstones were broken or toppled in Philadelphia. However, in one case in Brooklyn, vandals never toppled gravestones. Instead, dozens of grave stones fell due to neglect and the fact that no one was taking care of them.

In a related case, a former Chicago reporter named Juan Thompson, 31, was arrested recently for his “role” in a number of bomb threats against Jewish centers. Allegedly, he did this “as part of an ongoing attempt to shame his former girlfriend,” Ha’aretz reported. It is not known at this time whether the two suspects are linked in some way other than coincidence.

Thompson was charged with making at least eight threats against Jewish institutions in the United States, and a bomb threat to New York’s so-called Anti-Defamation League.

John Tiffany writes exclusively for AMERICAN FREE PRESS.




Congress’s Probe Into Possible Trump-Russia Ties Fizzles

Yesterday the directors of the FBI and the National Security Agency testified before a congressional committee about a U.S. investigation into allegations of ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Bizarrely, citing no evidence of aggression, congressmen and top U.S. officials claimed Russia continues to be a threat to the United States.

By Mark Anderson

The first day of the House Select Committee on Intelligence’s highly anticipated probe into alleged Russian involvement in influencing U.S. elections and policy saw FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency chief Mike Rogers testify in a spotty manner, going into often-speculative details and yet refusing to elaborate most of the time, under cover of “objectivity.”

Considering the conspiracy theories being pushed by most Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans that Trump administration appointees and allies privately met with Russian officials for the purpose of molding U.S.-Russian relations “off the grid,” you’d expect some kind of evidence. Instead, it was all speculation, but none of that matters for those who just assume that Russia is a dangerous arch-enemy of the United States.

It helps to sit back and take an objective look at the world stage. Russia’s entire western front consists of NATO member-nations or would-be NATO states, which, if they don’t proceed willingly, are prodded into joining NATO.

Montenegro recently became NATO’s latest member, as the U.S.-led alliance pushes ever eastward toward Russia while conducting periodic large-scale military exercises, right at the Russian border in many cases.

Imagine if Russian forces, complete with tanks and columns of soldiers, were in Canada along the U.S. border.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Members of Congress before and during the March 20 committee meeting continued to repeat the timeworn story that Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, when “the other side of the story,” backed up by several AFP reports over the last three years, is that, in a public referendum, Crimean residents voted to align with Russia—right when a U.S.-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s leadership took place.

High-level State Department official Victoria Nuland was involved in serious on-the-ground collusion in Ukraine, far beyond what the Trump White House or campaign is accused of. This helped to foster the overthrow of Russian ally Viktor Yanukovich as Ukraine president and the installation of Western stooge Petro Poroshenko.

Today, Poroshenko stands accused of launching brutal military strikes against east Ukrainians, who traditionally have been allied with Russia.

This all means that Russia reacted to aggression by the West. And when outgoing President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats in late December, Russian leader Vladimir Putin kept a cool head and did not respond in kind. That’s the mark of a true statesman.

You’d think that such perspectives—blotted out by the mainstream press—would at least be briefly considered at the committee hearing, if only in the interest of thoroughness.

Yet committee members singled out Russia Today (“RT.com”) as a highly untrustworthy government-linked news source that’s allegedly trying to influence Western opinion subversively.

However, all Comey and Rogers had done is concede that there is an investigation into Russia-Trump “ties.” But the overall “story” peddled to the American people is that this Russian matter is potentially so serious that the FBI and NSA are setting aside protocol and “breaking their silence” about the existence of the probe.

While addressing the committee, the two meandered through questions on whether Putin and the Russian state are really evil and whether Russia truly sought to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming president and helped catapult Trump into the White House.

While Comey and Rogers dodged many if not most questions—saying they did not find it proper to speculate on the cusp of their probe—they both claimed that Russia is indeed a foe of the U.S. And both said, yes, Russia sought to undermine U.S. “democracy” during the 2016 elections—all of which is highly biased when you consider that the two had already said that speculation is a bad thing at this juncture.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) opined during the hearing that Russia’s election hacking was like a shot over America’s bow.

“I actually think that their engagement was an act of war, an act of hybrid warfare,” Speier stated.

In response, Comey declined to choose the word “war” to describe Russia’s supposed interference in the election. But he did say, “I think they engaged in a multi-faceted campaign of active measures to undermine our democracy and hurt one of the candidates and hope to help one of the other candidates.”

Rogers agreed with Comey’s allegation, larded as it was with the words “I think.”

So much for avoiding speculation at such a pivotal time for the FBI and its presumably objective view of Russia’s actions with regard to the U.S. election and policy.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




Is Congress Pushing Obamacare Repeal or Obamacare 2.0?

The current crop of House Republicans is promoting a healthcare scheme to replace Obamacare. But is it any better, when it comes to individual liberty, than what we’re forced into now?

By Ron Paul

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on a Republican bill soon that supposedly repeals Obamacare. However, the bill retains Obamacare’s most destructive features.

That is not to say this legislation is entirely without merit. For example, the bill expands the amount individuals can contribute to a health savings account (HSA). HSAs allow individuals to save money tax-free to pay for routine medical expenses. By restoring individuals’ control over healthcare dollars, HSAs remove the distortions introduced in the healthcare market by government policies encouraging over-reliance on third-party payers.hat

The legislation also contains other positive tax changes, such as a provision allowing individuals to use healthcare tax credits to purchase a “catastrophic-only” insurance policy. Ideally, health insurance should only cover major or catastrophic health events. No one expects their auto insurance to cover routine oil changes, so why should they expect health insurance to cover routine checkups?

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Unfortunately, the bill’s positive aspects are more than outweighed by its failure to repeal Obamacare’s regulations and price controls. Like all price controls, Obamacare distorts the signals that a freely functioning marketplace sends to consumers and producers, thus guaranteeing chaos in the marketplace. The result of this chaos is higher prices, reduced supply, and lowered quality.

Two particularly insidious Obamacare regulations are guaranteed issue and community ratings. As the name suggests, guaranteed issue forces health insurance companies to issue a health insurance policy to anyone who applies for coverage. Community ratings forces health insurance companies to charge an obese couch potato and a physically fit jogger similar premiums. This forces the jogger to subsidize the couch potato’s unhealthy lifestyle.

Side Effects: Death

Obamacare’s individual mandate was put in place to ensure that guaranteed issue and community ratings would not drive health insurance companies out of business. Rather than repealing guaranteed issue and community ratings, the House Republicans’ plan forces those who go longer than two months without health insurance to pay a penalty to health insurance companies when they purchase new policies.

It is hard to feel sympathy for the insurance companies since they supported Obamacare. These companies were eager to accept government regulations in exchange for a mandate that individuals buy their product. But we should feel sympathy for Americans who are struggling to afford, or even obtain, healthcare because of Obamacare and who will obtain little or no relief from Obamacare 2.0.

The underlying problem with the Republican proposal is philosophical. The plan put forth by the alleged pro-free market Republicans implicitly accepts the premise that healthcare is a right that must be provided by government. But rights are inalienable aspects of our humanity, not gifts from government.

If government can give us rights, then it can also limit or even take away those rights. Giving government power to enforce a fictitious right to healthcare justifies government theft and coercion. Thievery and violence do not suddenly become moral when carried out by governments.

Treating healthcare as a right leads to government intervention, which, as we have seen, inevitably leads to higher prices and lower quality. This is why, with the exception of those specialties, like plastic surgery, that are still treated as goods, not rights, healthcare is one of the few areas where innovation leads to increased costs.

America’s healthcare system will only be fixed when a critical mass of people rejects the philosophical and economic fallacies justifying government-run healthcare. Those of us who know the truth must continue to work to spread the ideas of, and grow the movement for, liberty.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his column “Texas Straight Talk” for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.




Federal Courts Say Foreigners, Not Citizens, Entitled To Due Process

How is it that federal courts in the U.S. can block an executive order on foreign immigration issued by the president because it’s unconstitutional, but they are unwilling to grant the same rulings when it comes to Americans’ rights?

Paul Craig Roberts

The Constitution applies to U.S. citizens, and the amendments known as the Bill of Rights guarantee due process as a protection of U.S. citizens’ civil liberties. That’s the theory but not the practice.

Trump’s travel ban applies to non-U.S. citizens, primarily to refugees from the Bush/Obama bombings of numerous Muslim countries. Some of these refugees, whose families and countries were destroyed by American troops, could harbor feelings of revenge against Americans. The Ninth Circuit Panel’s injunction against Trump’s executive order gives the Constitution’s protection of U.S. citizens to non-citizens, apparently on the basis of due process and religious discrimination arguments. The panel of judges said that Trump’s executive order “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”

So too does bombing numerous Muslim countries over the course of the past 16 years, about which nothing has been done. One would think that, with the Democratic Party’s merger with Identity Politics and with the liberal/progressive/left leaning of the Ninth Circuit, more of a stink would have been raised about bombing Muslims gratuitously than on placing a mere ban on their entry into the U.S. But it all depends on who does the bombing and who does the ban. Identity politics requires “America’s first black president” to be supported at all costs, and Trump, a white, heterosexual, male billionaire, to be hated at all costs.

__________________________

__________________________

Dear readers, note that the U.S. federal courts roll out the Constitution in order to protect non-citizens from a president’s executive order preventing their entry into the U.S., but refused to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens from arbitrary indefinite detention and execution without due process.

The fact that constitutional rights no longer apply to citizens, only to non-citizens, has evoked no comment from the liberal-progressive left, from the Democratic Party, from Harvard Law School, from the American Bar Association, or from the Federalist Society. Not from anyone, and for my reward for telling the truth Harvard University Library has published a large list of “False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical ‘News’ Sources” on which paulcraigroberts.org is included.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Harvard’s library does not say where the list came from or why the list is credible. I am on the list for “bias” and “conspiracy.” The “bias” means that I do not accept the ruling establishment’s self-serving explanations, and “conspiracy” means that I report on the findings of the 3,000 high-rise architects and structural engineers who comprise A&E for 9/11 Truth, the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and the Scientists for 9/11 Truth, all of whom are far more knowledgeable about 9/11 than the Harvard librarian or the Harvard faculty.

Americans, and apparently Harvard’s library, are unaware that hardly any of the experts who have chosen to speak out about the official 9/11 story, including those first responders inside the two towers, believe a word of the official story. Harvard’s librarians are apparently so ill-read that they are unfamiliar with books by the 9/11 Commission’s chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel, who wrote that information was withheld from the 9/11 Commission and that the commission was “set up to fail.” Harvard’s librarian is apparently unfamiliar with the testimony of demolition experts that the buildings came down as a result of controlled demolition. Harvard’s librarian is apparently ignorant of the panel of scientists headed by a University of Copenhagen nano-chemist who reported finding both reacted and unreacted nano-thermite in the dust of the twin towers and who offered their samples for confirmation by other scientists.

Harvard University has no interest in truth. Harvard’s sole interest is to remain a member of the ruling establishment. As that requires telling lies, Harvard will tell lies. Lies bring Harvard riches, making Harvard so rich that, as Ron Unz argues, Harvard does not need to charge tuition and does so only out of greed.

Decades ago my University of California, Berkeley economics professor became dean of arts and sciences at Harvard. My term paper for the course had been published in the prestigious journal Classica et Medievalia. Years later, when he learned that my book, The Supply-Side Revolution, had passed the peer-review process of Harvard University Press and was slated for publication, he sent for me.

He said that he wanted to have me appointed to the Harvard economics faculty, because the university’s belief in econometrics had proven false and the economics faculty needed a broad-based person such as myself to bring the subject back to life in the real world. I wished him good luck and wondered how a dean this naive had survived at Harvard.

For the dean at Harvard, my work was a strong point. I was the first to explain the Soviet economy both as an organizational system and in terms of the original Marxist aspirations. I had reformulated the Pirenne Thesis, and my reformulation had been included into reading texts used in courses in medieval history and urban economics. I had produced new insights into economic policy and had identified regulation as a factor of production. My macroeconomic contributions had corrected the Keynesian deficiencies and extended the role of relative prices into macroeconomics. This seminal work had passed the peer-review process of Harvard University Press and resulted in the publication of my book, The Supply-Side Revolution, recently republished in the Chinese language in China, but still derided by American ignoramuses as “trickle-down economics.”

Harvard University Press kept The Supply-Side Revolution in print for decades. Despite this fact, even people I highly respect, such as Michael Hudson and Lewis Lapham, have no idea what supply-side economics is about and misrepresent it as some kind of preferment for the rich, which shows the power of the establishment to control the understanding of even highly intelligent people.

To get back to the story, my appointment to Harvard’s economic faculty was blocked by the economics department’s resistance on the basis that I was too disruptive of the orthodoxy. Me and Michael Hudson.

The orthodoxy has a large investment in human capital in protecting the rights of the 1% to plunder the rest of us. Those academics who support this plunder are the ones who prosper in the American academy, just as the presstitutes who lie for a living do in the American media.

So here I am, a peer-reviewed and published Harvard University Press author and peer-reviewed Oxford University Press author, whose books are now available in Chinese, Russian, German, Czech, Turkish, French, Spanish, and Korean, a person who has held the highest security clearances and once had subpoena power over the CIA, who has the French Legion of Honor, who has the U.S. Treasury’s Silver Medal, who has letters of thanks from President Reagan for my contributions to U.S. economic policy, who is asked to speak all over the world, who was Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University for decades, the William E. Simon Chair of Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University for 12 years, assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, etc., and so on, and some dumbshit at the Harvard library posts a list that says I am a suspect source of information.

This is the world we live in.

Even the most prestigious institutions are utterly corrupt. No one is there for the American people or for truth, or for anything or anyone except the 1%. Americans are shot down in the streets, whites along with blacks, by militarized police trained to see the people who pay their salaries as enemies. Muslims are bombed into the Stone Age. Reformist Latin American governments are routinely overthrown. European countries are intimidated, bribed, and reduced to vassal status. Aggression is displayed toward Russia, China, and Iran. America has become a great collection of evil. The good in the country is voiceless and without power. Evil rules us.

This is why this site is important. If you do not support it, you are bringing about your own demise.

__________________________

__________________________

I don’t have to write. My writing brings me insults from narcissistic, ignorant egomaniacs, puts me on black lists, makes overseas travel difficult, and possibly negatively impacts my relatives. The United States has devolved into a police state where truth is “the enemy of the state,” which makes me suspect. Why should I write without your support? If you aren’t willing to support the fight, for whom am I writing?

NOTE: The Harvard Library website, perhaps in response to my criticism, has now identified Melissa Zimdars as an assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College. The library still has a link to Zimdars’ list of fake news websites, but the link opens to something else.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities, and is the author of numerous books available in American Free Press‘s Bookstore.




Why Is McCain Hijacking Trump’s America First Foreign Policy?

What has happened to the foreign policy that Americans voted for on Nov. 8 with the election of Donald Trump, to include peace with Russia, an end to U.S. wars in the Middle East, and having rich allies pay for the cost of their own defense?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“The senator from Kentucky,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), speaking of his colleague Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), “is working for Vladimir Putin . . . and I do not say that lightly.” What did Paul do to deserve being called a hireling of Putin? He declined to support McCain’s call for a unanimous Senate vote to bring Montenegro into NATO as the 29th member of a Cold War alliance President Donald Trump has called “obsolete.”

Bordered by Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania, tiny Montenegro has a population roughly that of D.C., and sits on the western coast of the most volatile peninsula in Europe.

What strategic benefit would accrue from having Montenegro as an ally that would justify the risk of our having to go to war should some neighbor breach Montenegro’s borders?

Historically, the Balkans have been an incubator of war. In the 19th century, Otto von Bismarck predicted that when the Great War came, it would come out of “some damn fool thing in the Balkans.” And so it did when the Austrian archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo June 28, 1914 by Serbian ethnonationalist Gavrilo Princip.

Bug Out While You Still Can! Learn More…

Aflame with ethnic, civil, and sectarian war in the 1990s, the western Balkans are again in political turmoil. Milo Djukanovic, the longtime Montenegrin prime minister who resigned on election day in October, claims that he was targeted for assassination by Russia to prevent Montenegro’s accession to NATO.

Russia denies it. But on the Senate floor, McCain raged at Rand Paul: “You are achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin . . . trying to dismember this small country which has already been the subject of an attempted coup.”

But if Montenegro, awash in corruption and crime, is on the verge of an uprising or coup, why would the U.S. issue a war guarantee that could vault us into a confrontation with Russia—without a full Senate debate?

The vote that needs explaining here is not Paul’s.

It is the votes of those senators who are handing out U.S.-NATO war guarantees to countries most Americans could not find on a map.

Is no one besides Paul asking the relevant questions here?

What vital U.S. interest is imperiled in who comes to power in Podgorica, Montenegro? Why cannot Europe handle this problem in its own back yard?

Has Trump given McCain, who wanted President George W. Bush to intervene in a Russia-Georgia war—over South Ossetia—carte blanche to hand out war guarantees to unstable Balkan states?

Did Trump approve the expansion of NATO into all the successor states born of the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia?

Or is McCain hijacking U.S. foreign policy on NATO and Russia?

Trump should tell the Senate: No more admissions to NATO, no more U.S. war guarantees, unless I have recommended or approved them. Foreign policy is made in the White House, not on the Senate floor.

Indeed, what happened to the foreign policy America voted for—rapprochement with Russia, an end to U.S. wars in the Middle East, and having rich allies share more of the cost of their own defense?

It is U.S., not NATO defense spending that is rising to more than $50 billion this year. And today we learn the Pentagon has drawn up plans for the insertion of 1,000 more U.S. troops into Syria. While the ISIS caliphate seems doomed, this six-year Syrian war is far from over.

An al-Qaida subsidiary, the Nusra Front, has become the most formidable rebel fighting group. Syria’s army, with the backing of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias from across the Middle East, has carved out most of the territory it needs.

The Turkish army is now in Syria, beside its rebel allies. Their main enemy: Syria’s Kurds, who are America’s allies.

From our longest war, Afghanistan, comes word from U.S. Gen. John Nicholson that we and our Afghan allies are in a “stalemate” with the Taliban, and he will need a “few thousand” more U.S. troops—to augment the 8,500 President Barack Obama left behind when he left office.

Some 5,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, helping to liberate Mosul from ISIS. In Kabul, Baghdad, and Damascus, terrorist bombings are a weekly, if not a daily, occurrence.

Then there is the U.S. troop buildup in Poland and the Baltic, the U.S. deployment of a missile defense to South Korea after multiple missile tests in the North, and Russia and China talking of upgrading their nuclear arsenals to counter U.S. missile defenses in Poland, Romania, and South Korea.

In and around the waters of the Persian Gulf, United States warships are harassed by Iranian patrol boats, as Tehran test-fires anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles to send the Americans a message: Attack us and it will not be a cakewalk war.

With the death of Communism, the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Bushite New World Order, America needs a new grand strategy, built upon the solid foundation of America first.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM