Banking Syndicate Challenged

Monetary reformer Mickey Paoletta has cleared a key legal hurdle with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in his effort to use a “King’s Bench” petition to beat mortgage fraudsters.

By Mark Anderson

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on June 12 stamped the relevant documents and finally officially agreed to review a “King’s Bench” petition filed by a citizen under the auspices of noted monetary-reform activist Mickey Paoletta. This development represents a significant step forward in Paoletta’s 35 years of effort to expose the corrupt banking system and its allies in the legal field. But getting the high court to move this matter forward was grueling.

“They put us through pure hell for seven or eight days in a row, but they accepted it—reluctantly,” Paoletta told AFP, referring to what he and embattled York, Penn. homeowner-petitioner Christopher Inch experienced. “There’s corruption in the highest places, and more and more people know what’s up. They want it stopped.”

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

According to Paoletta, the means of stopping it is found in the “King’s Bench jurisdiction”—a British common-law legal concept carried over to several states during America’s formative years, including the commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The goal in Pennsylvania is to compel the high court to uphold the law and carry out broad oversight of the lower courts, and of those licensed to practice law, in order to stop, in blanket fashion, the torrent of fraudulent foreclosure proceedings against homeowners such as Inch.

This is explained in Inch’s petition being reviewed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Section six of the petition states: “This petitioner makes application to this court to invoke its inherent supervisory power over this case [a lending company’s ongoing lawsuit versus Inch] and the other similar state cases and take corrective action over its licensed attorneys and inferior tribunals.”

Section seven adds that Inch petitioned the court “to grant an injunction on this conspiratorial enterprise, to grant relief in connection with an issue of immediate public importance that has affected thousands of homeowners and potentially could affect thousands more.”

Beyond the crucial element expressed in sections six and seven—intended to get the high court to accelerate relief for Inch and all other similarly oppressed homeowners in one fell swoop rather than one case at a time—the information in sections eight and nine is of paramount importance. It outlines for the court the “extrinsic fraud used to obtain a summary or default judgment” against homeowners whose homes are under foreclosure on the basis of “forged and fraudulent foreclosure documents.”

Section nine specifies that Inch, “through affidavits, exhibits and expert testimony can and will prove conclusively” that debt-collection law firms and various lenders, including banks, “participated in a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only Inch but the Pennsylvania courts and the due process rights of this plaintiff [Inch] and thousands of others so similarly situated.”

Regarding the petition being reviewed by the state Supreme Court, Paoletta on June 21 told AFP, “They said we should have an answer in 45 to 60 days. But I have 30 to 35 people ready to file King’s Bench petitions if the high court declines to act further.”

Paoletta added that he’s broadening the scope of his efforts.

“Based on my research, it’s the Supreme Court’s duty in each state, not just Pennsylvania, to see that their inferior courts follow all the laws. My goal is to work with the leaders of the 50 states to get them thinking down the same path. And I did some extensive research and found you can do this with the U.S. Supreme Court for [overseeing] the federal district courts.”

He went on to say: “I cannot find one case in these 50 states where the banks and debt collectors did not engage in the production of forged and fraudulent notes in order to foreclose. We should be able to stop all judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. In a judicial state, such as Pennsylvania, they [the debt-collectors] have to file a complaint in state courts, but in non-judicial states, the debt-collectors and the debt-purchasers—which are one and the same in most cases—have the advantage, because the homeowners’ rights to a trial by jury in foreclosure cases are denied by the courts. In non-judicial states, you’ve already ‘agreed’ you’re in default when you sign the deed of trust. You’ve already given them the rights to your house and commenced judgment against yourself.”

Paoletta, who founded Mortgage Defense Systems in Mechanicsburg to shine a light on this fraud and help distressed property owners, believes that with this new approach, the American people can file these kinds of complaints even for property lost years ago through foreclosures. In other words, this bold quest for relief and justice could be retroactive.

Inch told AFP: “I don’t think the laws actually need changing much. If the lawyers and banks could be compelled to follow the laws on the books, much of this could be resolved. Despite Federal Reserve supervision and other oversight, when it comes to the foreclosure process, they know they’re dealing with people who don’t have money, are uninformed, or have broken life situations. The courts would not be so easily swayed by the banks and their lawyers if the homeowners and citizens knew the laws, knew their responsibilities, knew the corruption the banks are doing, and had the means to fight it.”

He concluded, “We need the public educated so it’s not just lawyers and banks pushing around poor people, but the people pushing back against this racket.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.




American Legion Betrays Servicemen

Once again the victims and survivors of Israel’s heinous attack on this unarmed USS Liberty have been betrayed, as American Legion has denied display space to the Liberty Veterans Association for its upcoming national convention. 

By Dave Gahary

In 2017, the 99th national convention of the American Legion (AL)—the 2.4 million-member war veterans organization founded in 1919—which was held in 2017 in Reno, Nev., produced Resolution No. 40. It called “upon the 115th United States Congress to publicly, impartially, and thoroughly investigate the attack on the USS Liberty and its aftermath and to commence its investigation before the end of 2017, the 50th anniversary of the attack.”

Although it was a valiant gesture to bring justice to the terror attack that took place aboard the spy ship USS Liberty (AGTR-5)—where on June 8, 1967, 34 Americans were slaughtered and 174 more were wounded in broad daylight in international waters—the reality is that the entire Congress is in the hip pocket of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. No investigation was completed last year, nor was it ever seriously considered.

Kingdom Identity

The AL, however, has now reneged on its promise to the USS Liberty. The AL declined the USS Liberty Veterans Association’s (LVA) request to set up a booth at the 100th national convention this year in Minneapolis, Minn. In fact, the letter from the AL to an LVA member was so harsh, one wonders why they even bothered passing Resolution No. 40 the previous year.

The letter reads:

Please find enclosed the return of your: (1) 2018 Exhibitor Contract request; (2) 2018 Housing form request; (3) May 2, 2018 letter; and (4) check for $1,000.

The American Legion hereby declines your offer and request to rent exhibitor space at our National Convention. No space, nor housing, has been reserved for you under these terms.

Very truly yours,
Kevin J Bartlett, J. D.
National judge advocate

What makes this all the more puzzling is that the AL has hosted the LVA many times over the years, and its booth has been very popular with attendees.

Even more shocking is the fact that the AL has lied to its millions of members and supporters to exclude the LVA from their convention. The LVA’s blog revealed this bald-faced lie in a June 4 update:

The American Legion has lied to Legionnaires who called the national organization to find out why the LVA has been denied a booth at the 2018 American Legion National Convention. Legionnaires have been told that at the time the LVA requested a booth there [was] no space available. For this to be true the national organization would have [had] to run out of exhibit space on May 7, 2018—three months and 17 days prior to the convention.

LVA President Ernie Gallo signed the application paperwork on April 10 and LVA Vice President Larry Bowen signed it on April 16, 2018.

Before sending the application in, we called Andrea Watson to let her know we’d be sending in the application with all that was required except the certificate of insurance, which expires before the date of the event. We told her we’d send that as soon as the insurance company sends us the bill to renew. Our insurance certification expires on July 10, 2018. Ms. Watson then told us that we would not be allowed in the convention.

Despite this and knowing that there is an active American Legion Resolution supporting our call for a complete and comprehensive public congressional investigation of the attack on our ship, we sent in the check and application by certified mail on May 4, 2018. According to the signed certified mail receipt they received our paperwork on May 7, 2018.

Congress has failed miserably for over 51 years to honor the men—many of whom paid the ultimate price for their country—of the USS Liberty.

This is, as former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer called it, a “national disgrace.”

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 film about the attack on the USS Liberty. See the website erasingtheliberty.com or call (850) 677-0344 for more information.




Neo-Bolshevik Thugs Get Free Pass

A California court has let violent thugs associated with antifa off the hook for violent attacks against Trump supporters, yet again.

By John Friend

A jury found five self-described antifascist activists not guilty of two separate misdemeanor assault charges stemming from a violent attack on a Trump supporter in March 2017 at the conclusion of a contentious trial at the Alameda County Superior Courthouse in Oakland, Calif. Oakland is a short distance from Berkeley, Calif., which was the scene of multiple violent clashes involving Trump supporters, free-speech activists, and other right-leaning patriots on one  side and bands of antifa, anti-Trump activists, and other radical leftwing groups on the other.

On March 4, 2017, supporters of President Donald Trump organized a “March on Berkeley,” one of a number of protests and rallies in recent years that pitted pro-Trump and anti-Trump activists against each other in the iconic college town. As is typical of pro-Trump rallies and events, violence quickly broke out between supporters and opponents of the president, despite the presence of police.

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

The five defendants—Taylor Fuller, Scott Hedrick, Nathan Perry, Jeff Armstrong, and Dustin Sawtelle—were accused of violently assaulting Daniel Quillinan, a local antique dealer and Trump supporter, as he sat on a concrete ledge near Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park in downtown Berkeley. The attack had followed other violent incidents in the park earlier that day.

Two Berkeley firefighters and one police officer testified that they witnessed the violent assault on Quillinan, who at the time was seeking medical attention for a massive cut on his head he’d sustained from a blow earlier in the day. The cut eventually required 10 staples to close.

Berkeley Police Sgt. Jesse Grant testified that he witnessed two of the defendants—Armstrong and Perry—walk up to Quillinan as he sat on the ledge and openly assault him with punches and kicks. Several other anti-Trump protesters then descended upon Quillinan in a hail of blows, with Grant and two Berkeley fire captains—David Sprague-Livingston and Jonathan Fischer—quickly confronting the mob before they ran down the street. The five defendants were arrested by other Berkeley police officers shortly after they fled from the violent, unprovoked attack on Quillinan. Fischer also testified that the group of antifa protesters walking down the street “threw the first punch,” confirming Grant’s testimony.

Despite the credible statements from first responders and local law enforcement officials, the jury still somehow managed to find the five defendants not guilty. According to local reports, dozens of supporters of the defendants were present throughout the three-day trial and made their political views and support for the defendants known to the courtroom and jury. They hissed, cheered, laughed at, and derided participants in the trial at various moments throughout, with Judge Alison Tucher reprimanding the crowd multiple times, insisting that they were present at a “courtroom, not a political rally.” Incredibly, at one point, a supporter for the defendants held up a political flier in front of the jury, demanding that they “drop the charges” against her fellow antifa activists.

Shanta Driver, the defense attorney representing all five defendants, is a national organizer for the radical leftist activist group By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN, which is known for unprovoked violence against its political opponents and has a strong presence in the San Francisco Bay area, including in Berkeley and Oakland. During the trial, Driver called all five of her defendants to testify, as well as other local Berkeley activists, including other BAMN leaders.

Jim Logan, who prosecuted the case on behalf of the Alameda County District Attorney’s office, implored the jury to focus specifically on the chain of events surrounding the violent assault on Quillinan, which clearly implicated all five defendants.

“Just because the victim is dislikable doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply,” Logan told jurors in his closing argument. “The defendants don’t get to decide . . . punishment on the street. That’s what the courtroom is for.”

Notwithstanding Logan’s plea for objectivity and a fair application of the law to prevail, jurors still dismissed the charges to a frenzy of cheers and celebration in the courtroom, which was dominated by antifa sympathizers and supporters of the defendants.

The recent decision marks yet another victory for the radical left, which has a long and well-documented history of violently confronting and assaulting their political opponents, particularly since the entrance of President Donald Trump onto the political scene.

Throughout the 2016 presidential election, radical leftist groups, antifa activists, and other opponents of Trump’s America-first agenda engaged in violence, sabotage, and disruption of a variety of political events and rallies, violating the First Amendment rights of countless American citizens.

The political mayhem and criminality carried out by the radical left has been successful largely because they have carried on with their criminal campaign of political terrorism and violence with virtually no major repercussions, as demonstrated once again in the dismissal of the self-described “Berkeley Anti-Fascist 5.”

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




The Liberal Stampede to ‘Abolish ICE’

Pat Buchanan says the question of 2018 is whether or not we should abolish ICE and open our borders. Seriously, is this really the point we’ve reached led by the screachings of an unhinged left?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“No Borders! No Nations! No Deportations!” “Abolish ICE!”

Before last week, these were the mindless slogans of an infantile left, seen on signs at rallies to abolish ICE, the agency that arrests and deports criminal aliens who have no right to be in our country.

By last week, however, “Abolish ICE!” was no longer the exclusive slogan of the unhinged left. National Democrats were signing on.

Before his defeat in New York’s 14th Congressional District, Joe Crowley, fourth-ranked Democrat in the House, called ICE a “fascist” organization.

After Crowley’s rout by a 28-year-old socialist who called for killing the agency, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), declared ICE to be “a cruel deportation force (that) we need to abolish.”

MidEast Chess Board

Cynthia Nixon, a candidate for governor of New York, described ICE as a “terrorist organization . . . terrorizing people who are coming to this country. . . . We need to abolish ICE.”

A star of “Sex and the City” castigated the men and women of ICE as terrorists at St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church in Manhattan. One wonders what the pastor thought of this Christian message.

Friday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio joined the clamor: “We should abolish ICE.” Over the weekend, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., signed on:

“President Trump seems to think that the only way to have immigration rule is to rip parents from their family (and) treat rape victims and refugees like terrorists and to put children in cages.”

What ICE does is “ugly” and “wrong,” said Warren.

“We need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality.”

Wisconsin Democratic Congressman Mark Pocan plans to introduce legislation to do exactly that — abolish ICE.

President Donald Trump describes this latest liberal campaign as social and political insanity: “You get rid of ICE you’re going to have a country that you’re going to be afraid to walk out of your house.”

What is going on here?

Democrats, having just gone through the worst week in memory for progressives, are in imminent danger of losing it altogether.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that not only is the Trump travel ban constitutional, government unions have no right to extract “agency fees” from workers who do not wish to support the union.

Such fees violate the First Amendment rights of government workers not to promote policies or ideas in which they disbelieve.

Then came word that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the “swing vote” on the Supreme Court who was crucial to the decisions that established abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage as constitutional rights, will be stepping down

And Trump informed the press that he would announce Kennedy’s successor on July 9, to be drawn from a list of 20 jurists and legal scholars, all of whom have been vetted by the Federalist Society.

Panic ensued.

“I’m scared. You’re scared. We’re all scared,” says Warren in a video her campaign has released.

On Bill Maher’s show, leftist film director Michael Moore called for a million citizens to surround the Capitol to prevent a vote on Kennedy’s successor. How Moore’s million-man march proposes to get into Mitch McConnell’s Senate chamber was left unexplained.

At a fundraiser in Berkeley, California, Barack Obama tried to calm his terrified minions: “All these people that are out here kvetching and wringing their hands and stressed and anxious and constantly watching cable tv and howling at the moon, ‘What are we going to do?’ Their hair is falling out.”

But liberal elites making fools of themselves is a less serious matter than the savage slanders Democrats are hurling at the 20,000 men and women of ICE who are daily protecting us and our country.

ICE, after all, was established to prevent another 9/11, when [allegedly] real terrorists, some of whom had overstayed their visas, massacred 3,000 innocent people, most of them Americans.

This vilification of ICE, writes Deputy Director Thomas D. Homan, represents both an injustice and an act of ingratitude:

“Since September 2016, ICE has arrested nearly 5,000 criminal aliens in New York—individuals with a criminal conviction in addition to their violation of immigrant laws. Many of these arrests were conducted at large in the community, which ICE is increasingly forced to do due to sanctuary policies in the state that prevent us from taking custody of criminal aliens in the secure confines of a jail.

“Governor (Andrew Cuomo) supports these policies at the expense of the safety of the very same communities he took an oath to protect.”

Whatever one may think of Trump’s policy of “zero tolerance” of immigrants who break into our country, for elites to smear the 20,000 men and women who risk their lives to keep us safe, as “terrorists” and “fascists,” is an especially egregious form of liberal ingratitude.

What is it in the DNA of the left that it is always ready to enlist in any new war on cops?

The issue of 2018: Should we, or should we not, abolish ICE and embrace the progressive alternative of open borders?

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Tariffs Are Actually Good for U.S. Economy

Despite doom & gloom scenarios offered by elite, bad trade practices needed to be killed.

By John Friend

President Donald Trump has long railed against what he describes as unfair trade deals and high tariffs imposed on U.S. businesses and manufacturers, denouncing many of the key pillars of the post-WWII global economic order and vowing to end these deals, which have harmed American workers and companies for decades now.

During the 2016 presidential campaign and following his election as president, Trump has repeatedly promised, much to the chagrin of leading globalists both in the U.S. and abroad, to impose tariffs on goods from other countries that impose high tariffs on U.S. goods and services as well as to enact other protectionist trade policies in an effort to boost American business and manufacturing.

Since the beginning of this year, Trump has imposed a number of tariffs on goods coming from long-time U.S. trade partners and allies, including Mexico, the European Union (EU), and Canada, particularly on steel and aluminum imports originating in these countries.

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

At the recently concluded G7 Summit, held in Quebec June 8-9, Trump described the high tariffs that target American manufacturers as “ridiculous and unacceptable,” and described the U.S. as “a piggy bank that everybody is robbing.”

On June 10, Trump let loose on Twitter, denouncing the free trade deals brokered by previous administrations.

“Why should I, as president of the United States, allow countries to continue to make massive trade surpluses, as they have for decades, while our farmers, workers & taxpayers have such a big and unfair price to pay? Not fair to the people of America!” Trump tweeted. “Sorry, we cannot let our friends or enemies take advantage of us on trade anymore. We must put the American worker first!” read yet another tweet, hinting at moves the president plans on making in order to rectify the unfair trade deals the U.S. has suffered under for so long.

Trump and his top advisers have argued recently that now is the time to take drastic action on these unfair trade deals, and they are expecting cooperation from traditional allies and longtime trading partners such as Canada, Mexico, and the EU.

“The global trading system needs major surgery and every country must be part of the solution, even our friends,” Daniel DiMicco, a former trade adviser to Trump’s campaign and current chairman of the Coalition for a Prosperous America trade group, explained to The New York Times recently.

Once again taking to Twitter to express his sentiments on the controversy, Trump explained simply: “The United States will not allow other countries to impose massive tariffs and trade barriers on its farmers, workers and companies while sending their products into our country tax-free. We have put up with trade abuse for many decades—and that is long enough.”

How much cooperation he will receive from other countries, including long-time allies and trading partners, remains to be seen. The president, however, appears more defiant than ever on this issue and has made it a central premise of his agenda.

Virtually the entire mainstream corporate media and political establishment have lambasted Trump and his criticisms of the various free trade deals that comprise the post-WWII global economic order, viewing free trade as sacrosanct and necessary for a prosperous economic powerhouse such as the United States. Sen. John Mc-Cain (R-Ariz.), a leading globalist and neoconservative warmonger, recently argued that “bipartisan majorities of Americans remain pro-free trade, pro-globalization, and supportive of alliances based on 70 years of shared values,” a false and unchallenged narrative that has been endlessly promoted and parroted by the political and media establishment for decades. And what have the results of this been? Millions of good jobs have left the United States, and the wealthiest 1% of the world have increased their net worth while hardworking middle-class Americans continue to struggle.

Trump and his top advisers disagree and have pledged to finally put American workers and manufacturers first by renegotiating trade deals to protect American businesses and industry.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.




The End Is Near for SPLC Hate Racket

The front-page story in American Free Press Issue 27 & 28, which just went to press (and is available online now for digital subscribers) offers some hopeful news for those looking forward to the demise of the longtime leading national hate group—the SPLC—which has destroyed countless individuals and organizations and holds undue sway over law enforcement agencies across the country as well as much of the media. Nearly four-dozen leaders of conservative and right-leaning nonprofit organizations issued a “Joint Statement by Organizations Defamed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” Now, at least 60 are considering taking legal action against the super-rich smear center for defamation.

By John Friend

In the wake of a high-profile settlement the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently reached with an anti-extremism group, nearly four dozen nonprofit leaders representing conservative-leaning organizations issued a joint statement condemning the SPLC and intimating that a massive lawsuit will likely be launched against the radical activist group.

According to a recent press release, 47 leaders of various conservative and right-leaning nonprofit organizations issued what they described as a “Joint Statement by Organizations Defamed by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” describing how their respective organizations have been smeared and defamed by the SPLC in the past. Expressing gratitude that “the SPLC has formally acknowledged that it has engaged in such misrepresentations” by settling with Maajid Nawaz and his anti-extremism organization the Quilliam Foundation for $3.375 million, the leaders argued that the organization is simply “a leftist instrument of political warfare against those with whom it disagrees,” and that the organization “deserves the infamy it has lately earned.”

The statement continued, “Editors, CEOs, shareholders, and consumers alike are on notice: Anyone relying upon and repeating its misrepresentations is complicit in the SPLC’s harmful defamation of large numbers of American citizens who, like the undersigned, have been vilified simply for working to protect our country and freedoms. . . . With this significant piece of evidence in mind, we call on government agencies, journalists, corporations, social media providers, and web platforms (i.e., Google, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon) that have relied upon this discredited organization to dissociate themselves from the Southern Poverty Law Center and its ongoing effort to defame and vilify mainstream conservative organizations.”

MidEast Chess Board

In addition to the joint public statement, many organizations are considering also taking legal action against the SPLC, according to online news organization PJ Media, which first broke the story.

“We haven’t filed anything against the SPLC, but I think a number of organizations have been considering filing lawsuits against the SPLC, because they have been doing to a lot of organizations exactly what they did to Maajid Nawaz,” Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and one of the signatories of the joint public statement, explained to PJ Media. “The SPLC promotes false propaganda, [and] demonizes and labels groups they disagree with, and that labeling has economic as well as physical consequences.”

Staver told PJ Media that he knew of “at least 60” organizations that are considering taking legal action against the SPLC for defamation in the wake of the settlement with Nawaz.

Now on sale, 20% off! Order from the AFP Online Store today.

Importantly, the June 20 joint statement demands that government agencies, politicians, corporations, media outlets, and social media companies sever ties from the discredited organization, which has for years masqueraded as one of the nation’s leading civil rights organizations.

Many top Internet giants and social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, have partnered with the SPLC to monitor, patrol, and combat “hate speech,” erroneously viewing the organization as an objective purveyor of information and advice. Mainstream media outlets have likewise relied on the SPLC for analysis and advice on issues pertaining to “hate” and “inclusiveness.”

In reality, the SPLC is little more than a radical, leftwing activist organization that has systematically targeted its political opponents for years. The end result has been rampant censorship of any views the liberal group disagrees with, which has damaged many organizations financially and interfered with their ability to conduct business.

Finally, this leading hate group’s credibility is starting to crumble.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

Not yet an AFP Online digital subscriber? A one-year subscription is only $25, or FREE with a full-price paid print subscription. Click here to review the various options for digital-only or digital/print subscriptions and subscribe today.




Radical Group Behind Culture Purge

The greatest eradication of heritage in America’s history has been spurred by the racist SPLC “law center.”

By Dr. Ed DeVries

It took roughly a century and a half to erect all of the nation’s Confederate monuments. A June 4 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) shows that since Dylann Roof shot nine black churchgoers in South Carolina three years ago, back on June 17, 2015, Confederate monuments are being torn down at the rapid pace of about three each month.

Some monuments were removed from prominent locations to great fanfare, like the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse grounds by former Gov. Nikki Haley or the removal by Mayor Mitch Landrieu of the four Confederate statues in New Orleans. But in most cases, like in Baltimore and in Memphis, city officials secretly removed Confederate monuments in the dead of night.

All told, at least 110 monuments to the Confederacy have been removed across the country in the last three years. Still, according to the same SPLC report, more than 1,728 listed monuments remain. And these do not include references to the Confederacy in museums, or the markers on hundreds of battlefields.

Kingdom Identity

According to the SPLC report, there are still 772 Confederate statues standing in 23 states and in Washington, D.C. All are the targets of organized SPLC removal campaigns. The report also lists 80 counties and cities named for Confederates as well as over 100 public schools named for Gen. Robert E. Lee, Confederate States President Jefferson Davis, or other Confederate icons. Of these schools, 39 have had their names changed to “non-offensive”  names in the last three years, but the SPLC has targeted all of them for organized efforts to have their names changed.

So far, the apparently not-so-great state of Texas leads the nation, having removed the most Confederate monuments. There, the SPLC claims to have successfully lobbied to remove 31 monuments. Still, dozens remain, according to Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s “Intelligence Project,” so their efforts continue. These efforts have been assisted by state House Speaker Joe Straus, who is calling for the removal of Confederate markers in the state capitol. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has made it clear that he will not intervene on behalf of the monuments, but Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) has spoken about the possibility of keeping at least some of them.

According to Beirich, her agency is committed to the removal of anything that “glorifies” the Confederacy. That means that all of Georgia’s 115 remaining monuments are going to have to go, as will all of Virginia’s 108 remaining monuments. The same goes for the 97 that remain in North Carolina, and for 20 other states that still host Confederate statues.

Also targeted are 23 Confederate holidays statutorily observed in 11 states, the names of 10 U.S. military bases—Fort Rucker (Gen. Edmund Rucker) in Alabama; Fort Benning (Brig. Gen. Henry L. Benning) and Fort Gordon (Maj. Gen. John Brown Gordon) in Georgia; Camp Beauregard (Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard) and Fort Polk (Gen. Leonidas Polk) in Louisiana; Fort Bragg (Gen. Braxton Bragg) in North Carolina; Fort Hood (Gen. John Bell Hood) in Texas; and Fort A.P. Hill (Gen. A.P. Hill), Fort Lee (Gen. Charles Lee), and Fort Pickett (Gen. George Pickett) in Virginia—the state flag of Mississippi, Grady and Rabun Counties in Georgia, Carroll County in Mississippi, Walton County in Florida, and the uniforms worn by state troopers in Alabama.

Many of these ongoing removal efforts, according to Ms. Beirich, will be complicated due to the fact that seven states have laws in place specifically designed to protect their Confederate monuments. These laws did not prevent the removal of other monuments. Still, the SPLC lawyers continue to work on new strategies.

More concerning to Beirich is her belief that, “President Donald Trump has sided with those who want to continue honoring the Confederacy, calling the removal of ‘beautiful’ monuments ‘foolish’ and tweeting that it is ‘sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart.’”

Also attacked in the report, and branded as “hate groups,” are the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). While currently lacking in numbers and having absolutely no political organization whatsoever, the UDC is the organization that several generations ago was largely responsible for erecting over half of our nation’s Confederate monuments. Today, the SCV shoulders much of the responsibility of caring for and defending those monuments.

The SCV is rapidly working to erect new memorials even as others are removed. “They’re taking them down, and we’re putting them up,” said Thomas V. Strain Jr., commander-in-chief of the organization.

The SCV has announced plans for the construction of a monumentally sized building in Columbia, Tenn. to house what will be The National Confederate Museum. The organization, on its website promoting the project, said the museum will counter attempts by opponents “to ban any and all things Confederate through their ideological fascism.”

It will not be a “Civil War” museum. Rather, the museum will tell the “Southern side” of the war. Strain said, “It’s not just dedicated to the soldiers, it’s dedicated to the wives and children who had to endure that five years of hell also.” He said, “We’ll have Southern uniforms there, not Union uniforms. We’ll have Southern artillery shells, not Northern ones.”

A pastor and in-demand traveling speaker, Dr. Edward DeVries is the editor of the Dixie Heritage Newsletter and a contributing editor at THE BARNES REVIEW. He is the author of 30 books including the two-volume Glory in Grey. Some of his other titles include Sacred Honor, The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag, Prayer is Simple, Every Member a Minister, and Coaching Youth Baseball the Right Way. He is also the host of TBR Radio’s “Dixie Heritage Hour.” Please check it out at www.BarnesReview.org.




A Fascist Right – or a Hysterical Left?

While it appears America is deep into a full-fledged societal breakdown, Pat Buchanan notes that recent headlines are not “unprecedented,” as some are saying, but “it’s not the 1960s, yet.” Regardless, the corporate media-induced devolution of the American Left into mindless hysteria and chaos is certainly well underway and we can only hope full-scale burning of cities is not next.  

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Trump’s supporters are truly “a basket of deplorables . . . racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” and “irredeemable,” as Hillary Clinton described them to an LGBT crowd, is not shunning and shaming the proper way to deal with them?

So a growing slice of the American left has come to believe.

Friday, gay waiters at the Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia, appalled that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was being served, had the chef call the owner. All decided to ask Sanders’s party to leave.

When news reached the left coast, Congresswoman Maxine Waters was ecstatic, yelling to a crowd, “God is on our side!”

Maxine’s raving went on: “And so, let’s stay the course. Let’s make sure we show up wherever . . . you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Apparently, the left had been issued its marching orders.

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

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was heckled and booed at a Mexican restaurant last week, and then hassled by a mob outside her home. White House aide Steven Miller was called out as a “fascist” while dining in D.C. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was driven from a movie theater.

Last June, the uglier side of leftist politics turned lethal. James Hodgkinson, 66-year-old volunteer in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, opened fire on GOP congressmen practicing for their annual baseball game with the Democrats.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was wounded, almost mortally. Had it not been for Scalise’s security detail, Hodgkinson might have carried out a mass atrocity.

And the cultural atmosphere is becoming toxic.

Actor Robert De Niro brings a Hollywood crowd to its feet with cries of “F—- Trump!” Peter Fonda says that 12-year-old Barron Trump should be locked up with pedophiles. Comedienne Kathy Griffin holds up a picture of the decapitated head of the president.

To suggest what may be happening to the separated children of illegal migrants, ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden puts on social media a photo of the entrance to the Nazi camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

What does this tell us about America in 2018?

The left, to the point of irrationality, despises a triumphant Trumpian right and believes that to equate it with fascists is not only legitimate, but a sign that the accusers are the real moral, righteous, and courageous dissenters in these terrible times.

Historians are calling the outbursts of hate unprecedented. They are not.

In 1968, mobs cursed Lyndon Johnson, who had passed all the civil rights laws, howling, “Hey, hey, LBJ: How many kids did you kill today?”

After Dr. King’s assassination, a hundred cities, including the capital, were looted and burned. Scores died. U.S. troops and the National Guard were called out to restore order. Soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat upon. Cops were gunned down by urban terrorists. Bombings and bomb attempts were everyday occurrences. Campuses were closed down. In May 1971, tens of thousands of radicals went on a rampage to shut down D.C.

A cautionary note to progressives: Extremism is how the left lost the future to Nixon and Reagan.

But though our media may act like this is 1968, we are not there, yet. That was history; this is still largely farce.

The comparisons with Nazi Germany are absurd. Does anyone truly believe that the centers where the children of illegal migrants are being held, run as they are by liberal bureaucrats from the Department of Health and Human Services, are like Stalin’s Gulag or Hitler’s camps?

This is hyperbole born of hysteria and hate.

Consider. Two million Americans are in jails and prisons, all torn from their families and children. How many TV hours have been devoted to showing what those kids are going through?

Thirty percent of all American children grow up with only one parent.

How many TV specials have been devoted to kids separated for months, sometimes years, sometimes forever, from fathers and mothers serving in the military and doing tours of duty overseas in our endless wars?

Because of U.S. support for the UAE-Saudi war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, hundreds of thousands of children face the threat of famine. Those Yemeni kids are not being served burgers in day care centers.

How many Western TV cameras are recording their suffering?

When it comes to the rhetoric of hate, the cursing of politicians, the shouting down of speakers, the right is not innocent, but the left is infinitely more guilty. It was to the Donald Trump rallies, not the Bernie Sanders rallies, that the provocateurs came to start the fights.

Why? Because if you have been told and believe your opponents are fascists, then their gatherings are deserving not of respect but of disruption.

And, as was true in the 1960s, if you manifest your contempt, you will receive the indulgence of a media that will celebrate your superior morality.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



Guess What? Crying Girl Story Is Fake News

By AFP Staff

By now most people have seen the heartbreaking story of the young Honduran girl crying while peering up at her mother, who is surrounded and being patted down by Border Patrol agents. The assumption here was that the mother and her daughter were about to be torn apart as the child is sent to a children’s facility while her mother faces charges for illegally entering the U.S.

 

Ruling Elite
Get one year of AFP Online, the digital edition of American Free Press, FREE when you buy “The Ruling Elite: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation.” Add both items to your cart and use coupon code “Fake News.”

While the photograph being promoted by the mainstream media conveys the immediate terror of the young girl, it turns out the high drama being pushed by special interest groups and the mainstream media is fake. Of course, it fails to tell you what actually happened next to the woman and her child.

UK tabloid The Daily Mail reportedly tracked down the father, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, in Honduras. According to their report, the mother and daughter, Sandra, 32, and her two-year-old daughter Yanela Denise, have not been separated. Instead, the two were sent—together—to a family facility near the U.S. border.

More importantly, the narrative that the two were fleeing the horrors of Honduras is also patently false.

The father said that the mother and child made the dangerous journey without talking to him first. The couple has three other children, son Wesly, 14, and daughters Cindy, 11, and Brianna, six, yet the mother chose only to bring the youngest child.

“I didn’t support it,” he said. “I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day.”

While the father conceded that it is hard to find a decent job in the Central American country, he said he actually has a good one.

“I wouldn’t risk my life [to be smuggled across the border],” he said. “It’s hard to find a good job here and that’s why many people choose to leave. But I thank God that I have a good job here. And I would never risk my life making that journey.”

He added that he is not angry at his wife for taking his daughter away and paying human smugglers $6,000 to sneak them across the U.S. border.

“I don’t have any resentment for my wife, but I do think it was irresponsible of her to take the baby with her in her arms because we don’t know what could happen,” he said.

The mother and daughter were arrested by Border Patrol as they, along with a larger group of illegal immigrants, attempted to cross the Rio Grande River in the middle of the night on makeshift rafts.

“You can imagine how I felt when I saw that photo of my daughter,” concluded the father. “It broke my heart. It’s difficult as a father to see that, but I know now that they are not in danger. They are safer now than when they were making that journey to the border.”




Has the West the Will to Survive?

In a speech earlier this week, President Donald Trump rightfully said countries that do not have the strength to do the difficult things it needs to do to survive will cease to exist. Is this our future?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“If you’re . . . pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart, that’s a tough dilemma. . . . I’d rather be strong.”

So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump’s enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.

Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. But if the children cannot be separated from the parents as they await trial, both will have to be released to keep families together.

We are back to “catch and release.”

When that welcome news hits Central America, the migrant stream moving north will become a river that never ceases to flow.

Kingdom Identity

The questions America and the West face might thus be framed:

Is there a liberal, progressive, Christian way to seal a 2,000-mile border, halt millions of migrants from crossing it illegally, and send intruders back whence they came? Or does the preservation of Western nations and peoples require measures from which liberal societies today reflexively recoil?

Does the survival of the West as a civilization require a ruthlessness the West no longer possesses?

Consider what our fathers did to build this country.

The English settlers brought in 600,000 slaves, ethnically cleansed the Indians, joined their cousins in a war to expel the French, then revolted and threw out those cousins to claim all the land to the Mississippi for ourselves.

Jefferson grabbed the vast Louisiana Territory for $15 million from Napoleon, who had no right to sell it. Andrew Jackson drove the Spanish out of Florida, sent the Cherokee packing on the Trail of Tears, and told a dissenting Chief Justice John Marshall where he could go.

Sam Houston tore Texas away from Mexico. “Jimmy” Polk took the Southwest and California in a war Ulysses Grant called “the most unjust ever fought.” When the South declared independence, Lincoln sent a million-man army to march them back in a war that cost 600,000 lives.

William McKinley sent armies and warships to seize Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. The indigenous peoples were not consulted. “God told me to take the Philippines,” said McKinley.

The conquest and colonization of the New World and the creation of the United States and its rise to world power required acts of aggression and war of which many among our elites are ashamed. They exhibit their guilt by tearing down the statues of the men who perpetrated the “crimes” that created America. But of these elites, it may be fairly said: They could never have built a nation like ours.

Which brings us again to the larger questions.

While our forefathers would have not hesitated to do what was needed to secure our borders and expel intruders, it is not a settled matter as to whether this generation has the will to preserve the West.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
“Will America Survive to 2025?” On sale now at the AFP Online Store

Progressives may parade their moral superiority as they cheer the defeat of the “zero tolerance” policy. But they have no solution to the crisis. Indeed, many do not even see it as a crisis because they do not see themselves as belonging to a separate tribe, nation or people threatened by an epochal invasion from the Third World.

They see themselves as belonging to an ideological nation, a nation of ideas, whose mission is to go forth and preach and teach all peoples the gospel of democracy, diversity, and equality.

And this is why the establishment was repudiated in 2016. It was perceived as too elite, too liberal, too weak to secure the borders and repel the invaders.

“If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people,” said Trump Wednesday. Is he wrong?

Since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has grown apparent that the existential threat to the West comes not from Czar Vladimir’s Russian divisions returning to the Elbe.

The existential threat came from the south.

Half a century ago, Houari Boumedienne, the leader of a poor but militant Algeria, allegedly proclaimed at the United Nations:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

This is the existential crisis of the West.

Thus, Trump seeks to build a wall, turn back the intruders, and bring Vladimir Putin back into the Western camp, where Russia belongs. Thus the new populist regime in Rome blocks boats of refugees from landing in Italy. Thus Angela Merkel looks like yesterday, and Viktor Orban like tomorrow.

Patrick 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 2018 CREATORS.COM



Gina Haspel’s New Vision for CIA?

Intel expert Philip Giraldi hopes new CIA Director Gina Haspel will reduce “questionable activities.” In spite of her pro-torture responses during her recent confirmation hearings, she did put her foot down once opposing expansion of the assassination-by-drone program. 

By Philip Giraldi

After a bruising confirmation fight, one wonders if newly approved Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Gina Haspel will have the political support to put her own stamp on how the agency is structured and operates. Insiders note that, though she was acting director for only two months, she did little more than continue the changes made by her predecessor Mike Pompeo, who had been in charge of the agency for 15 months.

The past 17 years have seen a major change in how the CIA is organized. The Cold War agency was basically divided into two major intelligence components and included an administrative structure as well as a scientific and technical division that had their own independent functions but also worked to support intelligence operations and analysis. To put it simply, the agency consisted of one half that collected information and another half that analyzed the information collected. The operations component, itself divided into geographical regions, was a producer of intelligence, which was then processed by the analysts before going on to the consumers, which consisted of the White House, Congress, and other agencies within the government with a “need to know” that gave them access to the finished intelligence reports. The principal consumer of intelligence and the CIA’s “boss” was and is the president of the United States.

Within the system of producer-consumer there were a number of staffs and centers that dealt with issues like terrorism, drug trafficking, and nuclear proliferation that were regarded as global threats that defied neat compartmentation into geographic areas. The Counter Terrorism Center (CTC), which included representatives from the Secret Service, FBI, DIA, NSA, and Pentagon, also incorporated analysts into the process, which was a major break from the principle that analysts and case officers should never mix lest the final product be contaminated by operational or political considerations.

Post 9/11, the allegations that clues to the hijackers had been missed due to excessive compartmentation within the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies meant that the idea of fusion centers like CTC became more popular. It also meant that there was a great demand for officers with paramilitary training to send to places like Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. Spies who had been trained to slowly and carefully develop Russian diplomats for recruitment became less relevant.

Kingdom Identity

Operations in places like Pakistan became brutal, with low-level agents working for money treated like disposable garbage. When CIA contract officer Raymond Davis was arrested by Pakistani police in 2011 after he shot dead two motorcyclists, who may or may not have been Pakistani intelligence officers, it emerged that he was part of an armed team providing security for meetings with Pakistani agents. Agents would be picked up off the street, stuffed behind the car seat with a blindfold on so they would not know where they were going, taken to a second car where they would be interrogated before they would be paid and again stuffed behind the seat blindfolded to be taken to a spot where they could be dropped off. As a model of CIA agent handling it was not exactly old school.

Inevitably the methodology of CIA operations involving the recruitment and debriefing of agents, referred to as tradecraft, began to be forgotten as older officers retired and the training of new officers emphasized new skills. The agency pretty much began to forget how to spy and how to deal with an untested agent, leading to catastrophes like the 2009 suicide bombing deaths of seven CIA officers at Camp Chapman near Khost in Afghanistan, where an agency base was run by an officer who lacked the relevant experience and made a major security mistake.

And meanwhile more and more of the annual budget was going to the paramilitaries, who provided the physical protection of the burgeoning number of CIA sites and also protection for meetings. The transition to a different agency structure accelerated under President Barack Obama and his director, John Brennan. Brennan favored replacing the former geographic structure with more fusion teams that would include analysts and representatives from other government agencies. Many at CIA believed that Brennan had a particular animus against agency operations, as he had entered CIA hoping to become a case officer but had washed out of the training course. Brennan pushed ahead with his fusion program and also promoted Greg Vogel to be head of Clandestine Services, once described as operations. Vogel was a paramilitary, not a case officer, and inside the CIA it was widely regarded as the final insult to the agency’s spies.

Haspel, who briefly held the position of acting director of the clandestine service, was an integral part of the Brennan regime and generally went along with his preferences, though a source reports that she did dig in her heels at one point when there was a proposal to greatly expand the assassination by drone program. If she did that, it is to her credit and perhaps an indication that she does have limits in terms of what she would do in support of the White House.

Let Trump Be Trump
Available at the AFP Online Store.

As a result of the 2016 election, there was inevitably a change at the top of the agency. Coming into a CIA that no longer knew how to spy, President Donald Trump’s new director, Mike Pompeo, moved quickly to reverse many of the decisions made by Brennan, but he also brought his own set of likes and dislikes. Officers who worked directly with Pompeo reported that he was controlling, insisting on support among senior officers for whatever policies the White House was promoting. This did not go down well at CIA, where officers prided themselves on being politically neutral with their only guideline being to report developments honestly and analyze objectively. Pompeo also institutionalized greater emphasis on Iran as a prime enemy, creating a task force to address it.

And now there is Ms. Haspel. Insiders believe she will move slowly and cautiously but will continue in the direction set by Pompeo. That means somewhat of a reversion to the traditional agency model, which prevailed when she was being trained and during her first assignments. And given her grilling by the Senate, she will be presumably very cautious about engaging in questionable activities. As a former case officer, I would have to think that is a good thing—traditional spying hopefully without the renditions, the black sites, and the torture.

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




Border Patrol Spokesman Sets Media Straight on Horrors of Illegal Immigration

By AFP Staff

Chris Cabrera, a spokesperson for the National Border Patrol Council, was on CNN yesterday not just to defend law enforcement efforts on the border but also to call out Congress for failing in its constitutional duty to solve the immigration crisis.

In the shocking interview, Cabrera recounted horror stories that Border Patrol agents experience on a daily basis while policing the U.S. border with Mexico.

“We’ve had this situation going on for four years now,” he said. “I don’t think you can necessarily blame it on one administration or another. It started under one and is continuing under another. It hasn’t been fixed and it needs to be fixed.”

MidEast Chess Board

Cabrera went on to cite some of the worst examples officers have faced as a result of the lax U.S. border enforcement.

“When you see a 12-year-old girl with a plan B [birth control] pill—her parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of the journey—that’s a terrible way to live,” he told CNN. “When you see a 4-year-old girl traveling alone with just her parents’ phone number written across her shirt. . . . We had a 9-year-old boy have heat stroke in front of us and die with no family around. That’s because we’re allowing people to take advantage of this system.”

The spokesman excoriated the mainstream media for focusing solely on the kids being separated from their families and missing the larger picture, which is continuing to send the message that if illegal immigrants will make the terrible journey to the U.S. border, they will be allowed entry. The onus is on Congress to make that stop, he added. The message has to be zero tolerance for illegal border crossings.

And for those likening U.S. Border Patrol officers to Nazis, he had this to say: “Most of our agents are parents. I’ve seen guys and I’ve done it myself—you give your last bottle of water to a kid, you’ll take a toy out of your car to give to one of these kids because you know the situation they’re in. Agents are very sympathetic. We’re human, we’re fathers, we have families. We do a lot for the communities here, whether or not a camera is involved. Our agents are very involved. And nobody saves more lives along the southwestern border than the U.S. Border patrol.”

You can watch the entire interview here:




Trump and the Invasion of the West

Pat Buchanan points out that “with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.” While the current policy of separating detained children from their illegal migrant parents is being widely condemned, he asks what policy will prevent the suicide of America.
By Patrick J. Buchanan

“It is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart,” says former first lady Laura Bush of the Trump administration policy of “zero tolerance,” under which the children of illegal migrants are being detained apart from their parents.

“Disgraceful,” adds Dr. Franklin Graham.

“We need to be . . . a country that governs with a heart,” says first lady Melania Trump. “No one likes this policy,” says White House aide Kellyanne Conway, even “the president wants this to end.”

And so it shall—given the universal denunciations and photos of sobbing children being pulled from parents. Yet striking down the policy will leave America’s immigration crisis still unresolved.

Consider. Since 2016, some 110,000 children have entered the U.S. illegally and been released, along with 200,000 Central American families caught sneaking across the border.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Reflecting its frustration, the White House press office declared:

“We can’t deport them, we can’t separate them, we can’t detain them, we can’t prosecute them. What (the Democrats) want is a radical open-border policy that lets everyone out into the interior of this country with virtually no documentation whatsoever.”

Where many Americans see illegal intruders, Democrats see future voters.

And with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.

The existential question, however, thus remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?

The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away.

And Europe’s southern border is more imperiled than ours.

A week ago, the new populist regime in Rome refused to allow a boat full of migrants from Libya to land in Sicily. Malta also turned them away. After a voyage of almost a week and 1,000 miles, 630 migrants were landed in Valencia, Spain.

Why did Italy reject them? Under EU law, migrants apply for asylum in the country where they first enter Europe. This burdens Italy and Greece where the asylum-seekers have been arriving for years.

Of the landing in Spain, Italy’s interior minister Matteo Salvini, a leader of the populist League party, chortled:

“I thank the Spanish government. I hope they take in the other 66,629 refugees (inside Italy). We will not be offended if the French follow the Spanish, the Portuguese, and Maltese, we will be the happiest people on Earth.”

If the migrants boats of the Med are redirected to Spanish ports, one suspects that the Spanish people will soon become as unwelcoming as many other peoples in Europe.

And Trump is not backing down. Monday he tweeted:

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

Whatever European leaders may think of him, many Europeans are moving in Trump’s direction, toward more restrictions on immigration.

In Germany, a political crisis is percolating. The Bavarian-based CSU, longtime coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, is now talking divorce if Merkel does not toughen German policy.

Merkel has never fully recovered from the nationalist backlash against the million migrants she allowed in from Syria’s civil war. A New Year’s Eve rampage in Cologne, featuring wilding attacks on German girls by Arabs and Muslims, cost her dearly.

Among the reasons Bavarians are pulling away from Berlin is that, being in the south of Germany, Bavaria is a primary point of entry.

Virtually every one of the populist parties of Europe, especially of the right, have arisen to contest or to seize power by riding the issue of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.

Yet the progressives adamantly refuse to act, apparently paralyzed by a belief that restricting the free movement of peoples from foreign lands violates one of the great commandments of liberal democracy.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
“Will America Survive to 2025?” On sale now at the AFP Online Store

We are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.

If Europe does not act, its future is predictable.

The population of Africa, right across the Med, is anticipated to climb to 2.5 billion by midcentury. And by 2100, Africa will be home to half of all the people of the planet.

If but a tiny fraction of the African and Middle Eastern population decides to cross the Mediterranean to occupy the emptying towns and villages of an aging and dying continent, who and what will stop them?

Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of this issue of separating migrant kids from their parents.

But on the mega-issue—the Third World invasion of the West—he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



What’s the Truth Behind Iconic Image of Crying Immigrant Toddler?

By AFP Staff

By now most people have seen the photographs of the crying toddler whose mother is being detained on the U.S. border. It’s been sent around the world and has sent social media into a tailspin. The Holocaust and Vietnam have been invoked. Headlines on the front pages of liberal newspapers and magazines have gone so far as to accuse President Donald Trump of being “soulless” and “craven” and even “ghoulish,” but, as with all things on the Internet, when one really looks at the context behind these photographs, while still heartbreaking, there is much more to the story than we are being told.

crying toddler
Credit: Getty Images

Earlier in June, Getty photographer John Moore had been documenting illegal border crossings as he travelled with U.S. Border Patrol agents on patrol in Texas along the Rio Grande on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico.

On June 12, Moore struck media gold when he was able to capture a few shots of a woman and her two-year-old daughter, who had been traveling for over a month from their native Honduras through Mexico and up to the U.S. border. One image shows the toddler crying as U.S. agents pat down her mother. In another, the mother is bent over and is removing the child’s shoelaces as the toddler looks on.

Credit: Getty Images

In the week since those photographs were taken, the image of a crying toddler staring at her mother has been used by Internet warriors against U.S. immigration policies and stoked fiery outrage on social media with some posters accusing law enforcement officials of being Nazi soldiers carrying out orders to gas Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.

As with many things on the Internet, however, the truth is far from what many rabid, anti-Trump fanatics want you believe.

In an interview yesterday with The Washington Post, Moore explained to a reporter that, while the photographs are heartbreaking, the Border Patrol officers were thoughtful and professional and tried to make the best out of a difficult situation.

The fact is, the woman and her child, who were detained along with dozens of others, broke U.S. law by entering the United States illegally.

Coming from countries where people are regularly executed on the spot by paramilitary forces and police for minor infractions, it is understandable that the detainees would be frightened. In the United States, however, this doesn’t happen. On the U.S. border, the illegal aliens, including the mother and her young daughter, were taken to an immigration processing facility where they were fed, given shelter, and provided with legal representation that is either paid for by charities or U.S. taxpayers.

Kingdom IdentityThe question of splitting up families remains a hotly debated issue. As part of a new policy enacted under Trump, children and their parents are sent to different sites. In some cases, this is for the good. For example, in refugee camps in Europe, entire families are allowed to stay together. In some of these camps sexual assaults and violence have even become rampant. Up until the current administration, only children traveling alone would be sent to special facilities. The so-called “zero tolerance” for illegal immigration has prompted officials to now break up families, sending mothers and fathers off to be prosecuted while their children are kept in special care sites that are solely for kids.

The truth is, the solution to all of this controversy is simple, and it is something that Trump has repeatedly asked for. Congress has to get involved and enact commonsense laws for processing illegal immigrants. Men and women can be segregated, but mothers should be allowed to remain with small children while they await either deportation or an asylum hearing.

Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) announced this morning that Republicans intend to introduce a bill in the House today narrowly focused on asylum issues and ending family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Washington needs to stop playing politics with immigration. While most Republicans want to secure the borders, most Democrats have fought this, as they see immigrants—especially ones who are angry at Republicans—as future voters.

Obviously, the priority should be to protect the American people by securing the border, but that doesn’t mean we have to give up our humanity in the process.




Antifa Hounded Him to His Grave

Fired from his job and suffering from severe emotional and psychological trauma, a brilliant engineer-mathematician has committed suicide after harassment, intimidation, and threats by the neo-Bolshevik antifa activists.

By John Friend

A young, educated, and successful 34-year-old man who participated in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. last summer committed suicide after being harassed, intimidated, and threatened by members of the radical leftist antifa (neo-Bolshevik) group for his participation in the controversial and violent rally that garnered international attention.

According to his obituary, Andrew Dodson, originally from Greenville, S.C., took his own life at his home on March 9. Dodson graduated from Clemson University in 2007 with degrees in electrical engineering and mathematics, and began working for DuPont in Louisiana shortly thereafter. He soon decided to continue his education, and enrolled at the University of Arkansas to pursue a masters in electrical engineering, which he never actually completed. Dodson eventually moved to Boston to work for a number of companies specializing in advanced nuclear reactor design. He began working for Elysium Industries Ltd. and was associated with over two-thirds of the provisional patents developed by the company in just 18 months. He later worked for Zora Energy Renewables Ltd. and played a major role in the direction of the company, as he was critical to developing virtually all of the company’s intellectual property.

Kingdom Identity

Following the Unite the Right rally and the publicity his presence and participation generated, he quickly became a target of antifa activists and mainstream journalists, who exposed his identity and harassed him online. He was fired from his job and suffered from severe emotional and psychological trauma.

Photos emerged of Dodson wearing an “Arkansas Engineering” t-shirt at the rally. Multiple individuals associated with the university, including a professor, were misidentified as Dodson after the photo was shared on social media and in local newspapers, and many of them were harassed online. Dodson ultimately took credit as the man in the photo and spoke with local media outlets in Arkansas to set the record straight.

“There’s a couple of guys in Fayetteville that have been misidentified as me. It’s not those guys, it’s not them; it’s me,” Dodson explained to the Arkansas Times. “I’m so sorry, I would never want to hurt you and your family. If they want my t-shirt back, I’ll send it to them.”

Although Dodson did not graduate from the University of Arkansas, he appeared to have enjoyed his time spent there and “learned so much” from fellow engineering students and faculty at the university.

“It breaks my heart that they’re going to think I’m a Nazi, or a KKK, or a white supremacist,” Dodson told the Arkansas Times. “I did not put on that University of Arkansas shirt in order to represent them. It’s really like one of my favorite shirts and I was wearing it when I got on the plane. I just didn’t put two and two together. It was dumb.”

All Out War on Trump
“…A major threat from a radical leftwing group to our national security … Evidence of collusion comes directly from the FBI, which discovered that Antifa—the leftwing terrorist group that has thrown M-80 explosives at pro-Trump demonstrators and helped make college campuses virtually no-go zones for conservatives—has connections with foreign terrorists.” See AFP Online Store for more.

Dodson had prior experience with political activism and campaigned for Ron Paul in 2008. He later participated in both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party, and ultimately decided to go to Charlottesville to attend the Unite the Right rally because he wanted to “see who these alt-right people were,” despite the hostile media coverage of the burgeoning political movement.

Dodson encountered the right-wing activist group Identity Evropa during a torch-lit rally on the evening of Aug. 11, the day before the actual Unite the Right rally. Identity Evropa, Dodson discovered, was an “identitarian group” that denounced white supremacy and neo-Nazism, which Dodson appreciated. He explained to local media outlets at the time that he did not “see any Nazi flags, just a bunch of guys in khakis and polos,” referring to the Identity Evropa activists. He thought the rally and many of the individuals participating in it were legitimate activists rather than white supremacists and neo-Nazis. He did eventually encounter members of the KKK and neo-Nazi groups at the rally, but he told reporters he thought that they were bused in along with the more radical counter-protesters, who initiated the violence during the rally.

“I wonder if the same people that bused in the Black Lives Matter [protesters] and the [anti-fascists] and the communists—are the same people busing them in and . . . busing in the Nazis and the KKK,” Dodson asked the Arkansas Times.

He explained that the main problem with the rally was that there were provocateurs and radicals “trying to instigate racial violence—people on both sides—as an excuse to stop us from having our free speech,” which is ultimately what happened at the rally. “I want to talk about the money that is corrupting our systems. I am not going to say that there wasn’t racism there. There was. And I also think it was on both sides. God bless Trump. He’s telling the truth. I condemn racism on both sides.”

“Contrary to ‘official’ reports, Andrew Dodson was a real victim of the events in Charlottesville,” Dr. Jim Fetzer, a retired professor and prolific researcher and author who has written extensively about the Unite the Right rally, explained to this reporter in a recent interview. “He was a sincere participant who was profoundly troubled by ongoing attacks upon him for participating in [what he took to be] a just and peaceful protest.”

John Friend is a writer based in California.