Morris Dees Sacked

SPLC sleazeball co-founder sent packing !

By Mark Anderson

Morris Dees, the disreputable hate-peddler who has for many years posed as the arch-enemy of hate, was fired from his position as head of the infamous Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Montgomery, Ala. The SPLC is reviled among thinking Americans as an anti-free speech, anti-Christian, anti-conservative pressure group that has accused everyone from President Donald Trump to this newspaper—and many publications, organizations, and individuals in between—of being aligned with dangerous extremism.

The firing of Dees, now 82—who co-founded the SPLC in 1971—was effective March 13. SPLC President Richard Cohen was tight-lipped about the specifics, but he did say it had to do with “misconduct” of an unspecified nature.

“As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world,” Cohen said in a statement.

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

In the Montgomery Advertiser, Dees was quoted as saying: “I refuse to say anything negative about the center or its employees. I’ll let my life’s work and reputation speak for itself.”

His life’s work speaks for itself, indeed. In 1994, Dees was accused of mistreating the organization’s minority employees who said they “felt threatened and banded together,” as local media reported at the time, even while the SPLC has preached nonstop that the slightest alleged misstep against minorities is on par with a KKK lynching.

Worst of all, Dees molded the SPLC into a rogue agency, which, armed with its “Hatewatch” list and map of alleged “hate groups,” has routinely blacklisted scores of individuals and organizations while acting as a dominant source of information for media, law enforcement, and many large corporations.

That appears to be the SPLC’s core function: Erode and destroy the constitutional rights and reputations of most conservatives and constitutionalists, and criminalize “right-wing” free speech and assembly, all behind the smokescreen of being a civil rights litigation and education center. Although this is the very antithesis of fairness and objectivity, most media have continued to trust the SPLC’s analyses.

At least one newsman sees the truth. Jim Tharpe—the Advertiser’s managing editor in 1994 when the story broke on the SPLC mistreating minority staffers—said of Dees’s firing: “I would hope the IRS and the Justice Department would take this as [an] opportunity to come in and take a close look at the [center’s] finances … . It’s long overdue.”

In response to the SPLC’s announcement that it had settled a defamation lawsuit brought by Quilliam International—a group that works to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism—for nearly $3.4 million, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins responded by saying that the SPLC’s “falsehoods and dangerous tactics have finally caught up with them… . Even after this massive pay-out, the SPLC continues to sit on hundreds of millions of dollars (much of it offshore) that they use to advance their liberal policy agenda… . This public acknowledgment of their defamatory actions leaves the media and big business with no excuse in continuing to use the SPLC as an objective, independent source.”

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

Citizens Call for ‘Sanctuary City’ for Unborn

Amidst appalling new abortion laws passed in New York State, locals are pushing back.

By Mark Anderson

A bookstore owner in upstate New York is pushing back with all his might against the state’s tyrannical and immensely de-humanizing late term abortion law—passed under the innocuous name “The Reproductive Health Act” by the state assembly amid public celebration by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his Democratic confreres.

Among other things, Jon Speed of the Book Scout, a rare-books store he opened in Syracuse in 2014, is joining hands with others to build on the idea of declaring Batavia “a sanctuary city for the unborn” to protest Cuomo’s signing of the act. Getting the city to make such a declaration, however, is no easy task.

Speed, who is also pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church, was one of about 20 people who spoke out at a Feb. 11 City Council meeting, asking its nine members to at least write a letter to Cuomo to convey their official opposition to the new law, short of making the “sanctuary” declaration.

The encouraging part of this bittersweet story is that at least one of the council members had already indicated that it’s way past time for local leaders to stand up for the pre-born, amid reports that several other states have considered laws like New York’s.

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

“I grew up in Batavia. A friend went to an earlier council meeting [held a few days after the Jan. 22 passage of the state law] and council member Rose Marie Christian called for Batavia to become a sanctuary city. My friend filled me in and encouraged me to go back to my hometown and build on this,” Speed told this writer.

Speed took the extra measure of closing his bookstore the day after the law’s passage to deny the state its sales-tax revenues for that one day, while knowing, realistically, that he can’t carry out that action too often. But what counts, he said, is the tax-revolt symbolism. He continues to close the store from time to time for that same reason. “The theme of the emails that poured in, in response, has been hope,” he noted.

One of the horrific hallmarks of the abortion culture, beyond the increasingly callous disregard for the lives of the most defenseless and innocent human beings, is the moral surrender into which many people are induced, creating a frigid sense of hopelessness and a futile sense of cowardice in sizable cross-sections of the population.

On that note, the debilitating downside to this story is that when the Feb. 25 council meeting came around—bringing with it expectations by Speed and other pro-life activists that at least the letter to Cuomo may very well be approved—the letter-writing idea suddenly hit the shoals when every council member except Ms. Christian voted against it.

“They voted against it even though most of them are pro-life, which was really ridiculous. I mean, all it is, is a letter,” Speed remarked, exasperated about the lack of conviction among the city’s leadership.

Marcus Pittman, an Arizona native who directed “Babies Are Murdered Here,” a documentary movie for which Speed is a co-producer, had a different take that he passionately shared with the council with about 100 people in attendance.

“Marcus got up and spoke and … he really brought the ‘fire’ to the meeting. He just said, ‘I am actually against the letter; you should just make this place a sanctuary city for the unborn and be done with it, because we all know it’s murder,’ ” Speed recalled.

As of this writing, the sanctuary city idea remains in limbo. Meanwhile, Speed and likeminded citizens are continuing to raise public awareness by circulating petitions and conducting regular protests at an area clinic of Planned Parenthood—the nation’s largest tax-funded abortion provider.

Speed is especially disturbed that under the Reproductive Care Act, even the criminal code was altered to the point where, in a recent case, a man who stabbed a pregnant woman and killed her baby in the process was charged for harming the woman but “didn’t even get charged with murder under the new law,” due to the law’s dehumanization of pre-born babies.

“To think it’s become this wicked—this malice of forethought, this determination to kill the baby,” Speed remarked, adding, “Due to the nature of sinful man, there’s an obsession with narcissism—we must have whatever we want, at all costs.”

Beyond trying to get local governments to challenge state and federal tyranny against life itself, Speed is working on a sequel to the above-mentioned documentary movie, to be named, “Babies Are Still Murdered Here.” The original can be found on YouTube, where a 90-second trailer for the sequel also is posted.


Pro-Life ‘Heartbeat Bills’ Have a Chance to Pass in Several States

If no heartbeat means death, then a beating heart must mean life.

By Mark Anderson

In direct response to moves by certain states to allow late term abortion procedures beyond 24 weeks—well into the third trimester, when most babies could survive outside the womb if aided by modern technology—Missouri is seeking to go in the opposite direction.

On Feb. 27, Republican legislators in the Show Me State approved legislation in the state House for what could become the most restrictive abortion law in the country.

Missouri House Speaker Elijah Haahr and other legislators carefully examined what other states have proposed to limit abortion and decided to bundle all those measures into one piece of legislation—having focused on abortion laws that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had struck down because they were not sufficiently explicit about the state’s interest in protecting life.

“We watched what happened to New York and Virginia, and it was somewhat of a call to action,” Rep. Haahr told The Washington Times. “The goal of this underlying bill is to protect the unborn in this state… . We show [in House Bill 126] a significant amount of legislative findings, which multiple attorneys have told us is where other state abortion laws are falling short.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Thus, despite frequent media reports that suggest ultra-liberal abortion laws are the dominant trend, Missouri joins a growing roster of Republican-led legislatures seeking stricter laws that may spark a challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down state laws that prohibited abortion.

Meanwhile, in Iowa—which was something of a pacesetter last year with the passage of its “fetal heartbeat” law—Judge Michael Huppert in January 2019 struck down the measure, which, the Associated Press noted, “would have been the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation.”

The AP reported that Huppert found Iowa’s law to be “unconstitutional” on the basis that “prohibiting abortions at the detection of a fetal heartbeat,” as the Iowa law intended, somehow “violates both the due-process and equal-protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution as not being narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of promoting potential life.”

The media and judiciary both failed to explain how a living human being with a heartbeat is only “potential” life. In addition, the actual concept of “equal protection” of both mother and child is not even considered, nor is there any mention of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, “No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Nevertheless, Huppert’s reference to the Iowa law lacking a “compelling state interest” is exactly what Missouri is looking at to make its actions more “bulletproof.”

“I am incredibly disappointed in [Huppert’s] court ruling, because I believe that if death is determined when a heart stops beating, then a beating heart indicates life,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said in a statement, having signed the bill into law in May 2018. A July 2018 legal challenge by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and the Emma Goldman Clinic had halted the law from taking effect.

As of this writing, Rhode Island and New Mexico appear intent on following New York’s lead in allowing late term abortions, while Virginia’s House of Delegates, which had been on the path toward allowing abortion at any stage, voted down such radical liberalization.

Delaware Gov. John Carney foreshadowed New York’s infamy and signed a bill in mid-2017 making abortion legal throughout all stages of pregnancy.

A major factor behind radical abortion laws is the common fear shared by pro-abortion officials and media in New York, Virginia, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and elsewhere that the Supreme Court might someday overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, especially in light of President Donald Trump’s appointments of conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court and concerns that liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may step down due to health issues—creating yet another vacancy for Trump to fill.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at [email protected].

CPAC Banishes America-Firsters, Welcomes Liberals With Open Arms

Multiple conservatives were booted out of this year’s GOP-backed Conservative Political Action Conference, while left-leaning journalists were given press credentials and one well-known radical leftist was even invited to speak.

By John Friend

The 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference, commonly known as CPAC, wrapped up on Saturday, March 2, with a reported record crowd of attendees and a fiery concluding speech by President Donald Trump in which he ripped Democrats and their socialist agenda while defending American values and his administration. The four-day conference, which brought together conservative activists from across the country, was held once again at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Md., just south of the nation’s capital on the Potomac River.

The president spoke for over two hours and touched on a variety of topics central to his 2016 presidential campaign, including the threat of illegal immigration, America’s disastrous trade deals, the reviving U.S. economy, and related subjects. Trump, like virtually all speakers and panels at this year’s conference, denounced the socialist agenda of the Democratic Party, focusing particular attention on the proposed Green New Deal advanced by radical far left congressional representatives including the firebrand freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.). The Democrats were also characterized as promoting “a culture of death” for their support for controversial abortion practices, including partial-birth and late term abortions.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Trump’s freewheeling speech and the crowd’s response was reminiscent of the spirited, high-energy rallies then-candidate Trump held around the country during the 2016 campaign season. The president expressed confidence in his political future and that of the Republican Party heading into the 2020 election season.

“Our movement and our future in our country is unlimited,” President Trump stated. “I think we’re going to do even better in 2020.”

Perhaps one of the biggest stories to come out of the conference was the fact that a number of America-first nationalists and independent journalists were either excluded or expelled from the conference. Nick Fuentes, a young, independent pundit who hosts a popular YouTube program called “America First,” was kicked out of the conference, as were the independent journalists and political activists Patrick Casey, Faith Goldy, and Laura Loomer.

Meanwhile, several left-leaning journalists, including Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch, who regularly maliciously targets American populists and nationalists, were given press credentials and allowed to attend and cover the event. Van Jones, a radical left-wing commentator and pundit, even spoke at the conference, while some of the most popular conservative voices in America, such as Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, were not even invited.

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

Fuentes, Casey, and Goldy organized and held their own press conference after it was made clear to them they were not welcomed at CPAC.

“This year, CPAC decided to ban American nationalists, while welcoming anti-American leftists,” Casey stated on Twitter when announcing the press conference, which took place the evening of March 3 at a private suite at the Gaylord.

Fuentes was especially targeted, not only by CPAC but also by many journalists and activists at the conference, who were determined to expel him from their venue.

“There has been a lot of slander and name-calling going on this week by so-called ‘conservatives’ trying to justify keeping me out of their little corporate club,” Fuentes tweeted recently. “I’ve been called a lot of things, but I’ve never been called un-American, and that’s all that matters.”

The fault lines in the conservative movement are becoming increasingly well-defined. A clear divide exists between the more populist, rightwing conservative movement, which denounces political correctness and is unafraid to openly address some of the most controversial and taboo subjects, and establishment conservatives represented at CPAC. Both factions are vying for the hearts and minds of conservative voters and activists in an attempt to bring the movement more into line with their worldview.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Re-Open JFK, MLK, RFK Investigations

In American Free Press Issue 5&6, published the week of Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2019, S.T. Patrick reported on a renewed push for reinvestigation of the 1960s assassinations that rocked our nation. 

By S.T. Patrick

On the eve of Martin Luther King Jr.’s national holiday in January, 66 researchers, authors, celebrities, witnesses, and talk show hosts are calling for a congressional truth and reconciliation committee to reinvestigate the murders of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X.

While the initial press release called each signee a “prominent citizen,” the names that will surely carry the most weight with Congress and with average Americans are those with personal ties to the four murdered leaders.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the author of American Values, raised significant questions in his recently released book. His sister, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, also signed the “Call to Action” and the “Joint Statement on the Kennedy, King, and Malcolm X Assassinations and Ongoing Cover-ups.” The Kennedy family is new to public skepticism. There has long been an establishment defense that any further investigation would be hurtful to the Kennedy family.

The inaugural issue of Deep Truth Journal is now at the AFP Store.

What we have learned in the past decade is that the Kennedy family, itself, has been skeptical since JFK was murdered in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. In Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, journalist David Talbot explained that Robert Kennedy had always believed his brother’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy. When RFK was killed in Los Angeles on June 6, 1968, the possibility of reopening the JFK assassination case in the Sixties ended. While John Kennedy Jr. and Caroline Kennedy were silent on the topic of assassination while their mother Jacqueline was alive, it has been rumored that John Jr., as the cofounder of George magazine, was about to launch a full investigation of his father’s murder when he was killed in a plane crash on July 16, 1999.

The King family has for decades been more supportive of a reinvestigation. King’s son Dexter has been an ardent proponent of reopening the case. As RFK Jr. has recently met with an imprisoned Sirhan Sirhan, Dexter King met with the imprisoned James Earl Ray in 1997. Ray denied killing MLK, and King’s son told Ray that he and the rest of the family believed him. Some members of the King family have been against reopening the case, though still believing in conspiracy, as they find it damaging to further publicize MLK’s personal affairs. MLK’s nephew, Isaac Newton Farris Jr., and his longtime collaborator in nonviolence, Rev. James M. Lawson Jr., are two of the 66 signees. William Pepper, the attorney for Ray and the chief author of the MLK case, is also listed.

The murder of Malcolm X is the least discussed and written-about of the four, but it is not of lesser importance. Whenever intelligence agencies, domestic or international, have a hand in the murder of a public figure, it is important to find the truth. Rodnell Collins, a first cousin of Malcolm X and the curator of Malcolm’s childhood home, joins Karl Evanzz, author of The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X, on the list of signees calling for action.

The celebrities involved include director Oliver Stone, director Rob Reiner, actor Alec Baldwin, musician David Crosby, humorist Mort Sahl, and actor Martin Sheen.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected] 

Hate Crime Hoaxes on the Rise in America

Triggered liberals are fabricating violence to “prove” their claims about oppression, anti-Semitism and racism. The latest: Television actor Jussie Smollett has been charged with multiple felonies for fabricating a bizarre racially motivated attack on him, then sticking with his story even as it publicly unraveled around him.

By John Friend

In late January, news broke alleging that Jussie Smollett, a black, gay, and at least partially Jewish actor who starred in the popular television program “Empire” was violently assaulted on the streets of Chicago at 2 a.m. by two white men purportedly wearing ski masks.

Smollett alleged that his attackers, apparently motivated by racial hatred and instigated by President Donald Trump, yelled racial and homophobic slurs at the actor before shouting, “This is MAGA country,” referring to the president’s signature campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.” During the purported hate crime, the mysterious attackers also poured bleach on Smollett’s head and tied a rope around his neck in an attempt to lynch the actor, Smollett insisted in interviews with Chicago police and with the mass media.

The Diversity Delusion, MacDonald
“How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine our Culture,” Brand new at AFP!

Many questioned the dubious narrative put forth by Smollett, which was then blindly repeated and amplified by the mainstream mass media in the immediate aftermath. Smollett would later appear as a guest on the popular “Good Morning America” news program, where he was interviewed about the alleged attack. During the interview, Smollett expressed outrage at those questioning his narrative of the purported hate crime.

“It feels like if I had said it was a Muslim or a Mexican or someone black I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot more,” Smollett stated to host Robin Roberts during the interview. “And that says a lot about the place where we are as a country right now.”

Turns out, the doubters were right: Smollett faked the entire incident and was caught red-handed by Chicago police. Two Nigerian brothers were initially arrested as having been involved in the attack but were eventually released by police after an extensive interrogation during which they revealed Smollett had paid them to stage the attack. One of the brothers had a role in ”Empire,” and both knew Smollett personally.

According to CBS Chicago, the brothers told police that Smollett paid them $3,500 to participate in the entirely staged fake “hate crime,” and even directed them to purchase the rope used in the fake attack.

Despite Smollett’s narrative collapsing, the actor and his attorneys have doubled down and have expressed anger at the Chicago police’s findings that the alleged “hate crime” was in reality a staged, manufactured attack carried out at the behest of Smollett.

“As a victim of a hate crime who has cooperated with the police investigation, Jussie Smollett is angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with,” a statement released to CNN by Smollett’s lawyers recently declared. “He has now been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.”

Although the case is still under investigation, it is becoming increasingly clear that Smollett was involved in yet another hate crime hoax, which have proliferated in recent years, particularly under President Donald Trump. While fake “hate crimes” have been popping up with the direct assistance of the mainstream mass media and various left leaning organizations who hype and amplify the alleged crimes, real crimes committed against Trump supporters and conservatives often go unreported and, even worse, unpunished.

Intimidation Game, Strassel
Political correspondent Kim Strassel on increasing intimidation by the Left to bully Americans out of free speech. On sale now.

Throughout the 2016 election season, Trump supporters were regularly violently and verbally assaulted at various rallies and events across the country. Left-wing terrorists, who are in many cases affiliated with radical-far-left antifa groups, have caused mayhem and chaos at a number of events, including Trump’s inauguration in the nation’s capital, where private property was vandalized and destroyed. Richard Spencer, the political commentator and figurehead of the alt-right movement, was sucker-punched on live television during the inauguration by a masked antifa supporter. Unsurprisingly, the attacker has yet to be brought to justice.

In a positive development, University of California, Berkeley police recently arrested a 28-year-old man suspected of violently assaulting a conservative activist involved with Turning Points USA, who had set up a table with promotional material for the group on the campus. Hayden Williams, the young activist who was on campus to reach out to other conservatives, was assaulted after being confronted by two men who did not approve of his signs and recruitment table. The two men knocked over Williams’s table and tore up his signs before one of the men punched Williams in the face. The incident was caught on film and has since gone viral on social media.

Conservatives praised the arrest of Williams’s suspected attacker.

“Hopefully, this dark chapter will act as a wake-up call to those concerned about actual politically motivated hate crimes in America,” Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of Turning Points USA, the conservative activist group that seeks to spread conservative ideals, stated following the arrest. “Berkeley and all college campuses across American should be safe havens for free thought and opinions—especially for a targeted conservative minority.”


In the wake of the “hate crime” hoax perpetrated by Smollett, it is important to recall other “hate crime” hoaxes that have been exposed since Trump assumed the office of the presidency.

“The Daily Caller,” a hard-hitting, politically incorrect conservative news outlet based in Washington, D.C. that was originally co-founded by Tucker Carlson, provided an excellent timeline of recent hate crime hoaxes, proving just how prevalent these manufactured outrages truly are.

The allegations and circumstances of alleged hate crimes are all too common: a minority verbally attacked by racist, insensitive, white Trump supporters, or racist and anti-Semitic graffiti sprayed on a minority’s home or on a synagogue. All too often, allegations of hate crimes are either exaggerated, committed by the individual making the allegations in the first place, or entirely manufactured.

What follows is a partial timeline of some of the more outlandish hate crime hoaxes we have witnessed over the course of the past three years:

  • In November 2016, shortly after Trump’s victory in the presidential election, churchgoers at St. David’s Episcopal Church in Bean Blossom, Ind. reported their place of worship had been vandalized with messages reading “fag church” and “heil Trump.” A swastika was also allegedly spray-painted on the building along with the other messages. It was later revealed that George Nathaniel Stang, 26, the organist at the church, had actually committed the acts of vandalism in an effort to “give local people a reason to fight for good,” according to a local NBC report.
  • A Muslim student at the University of Michigan made national headlines in the wake of Trump’s election victory by falsely claiming that an intoxicated young male student had threatened to light her on fire if she refused to remove her hijab. Upon further investigation, it turned out the female Muslim student had made the entire story up.

Coddling of the American Mind
New at AFP’s Online Store.

  • A black woman in Delaware fabricated a narrative that she had been verbally assaulted and berated by four white Trump-supporting males shortly after the 2016 election at a gas station. The woman made a lengthy Facebook post describing the alleged encounter, only to later delete it. Police in Delaware where the alleged incident took place told local media outlets shortly after the woman’s allegations gained media attention that “no such reports have been filed” and that “they haven’t heard from the alleged victim or anyone with information about a confrontation that occurred,” it was reported.
  • In December 2016, reports emerged that a white couple’s home in Texas was vandalized with racial slurs and their vehicles were set on fire in an apparent hate crime. The husband later admitted to his wife that he himself vandalized their home and set their vehicles on fire in an attempt to stage a hate crime. The couple had set up a crowdfunding page on the popular “GoFundMe” website to solicit donations in the wake of the alleged hate crime. “My heart is heavy, and I have more questions than answers,” the man’s wife said following the revelation her own husband committed the crimes. “My children and I are in a state of shock and sadness.”
  • A young Jewish man with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship was caught making over a thousand fake bomb and shooting threats against a number of institutions and groups, including a number of Jewish community centers, in early 2017, an incident this newspaper has covered extensively.
  • A Michigan transgender and LGBTQ activist was recently arrested for burning down his own home, after police initially investigated the arson as a suspected hate crime. It has since been revealed the activist burned his own home down in an effort to generate more support and sympathy for his political activism.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Local Sheriffs Striking Back

In the front-page story of American Free Press Issue 11 & 12, mailed out March 8 and available online now for digital subscribers, Dave Gahary reports on local sheriffs who are creating “sanctuary counties” for gun rights.

By Dave Gahary

Mimicking the liberal concept of “sanctuary cities” to protect illegal immigrants across this once-great nation, a growing number of sheriffs across a handful of states are establishing “Second Amendment sanctuaries” in their counties, “refusing to enforce gun-control laws that they consider to be infringements on the U.S. constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

Reuters reported on March 4 that sheriffs in Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington are taking on the political rulers in those states—Democrats hold the governorship and both legislative chambers in all four—who are attempting to enact draconian gun control laws.

When Democrats swept into control across many state governments after last November’s midterms, many of them followed through on their “promises to enact gun control in response to an epidemic of mass shootings in public spaces, religious sites, and schools.”

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

Supporters of the Second Amendment sanctuary movement would like “to take it nationwide.” Those involved in the four states have already “formed a loose alliance, sometimes sharing strategies or texts of resolutions.” They’re also coordinating with those who share their sentiments in California, Idaho, Iowa, and New York.

Sheriffs who were elected by the people and some county commissioners are considering allowing some of their constituents—targets of so-called “red-flag” laws—“to keep their firearms.” Additionally, where some states raised the legal gun ownership age to 21, sheriffs there may “refuse to confiscate guns from 18-to-20-year-olds.”

Red-flag laws allow family members or police to ask a court to temporarily remove firearms from someone “who may present a danger to others or themselves.” Later on, the firearms are to be returned, unless the seizure is extended. Some sheriffs believe these laws violate due process and are overkill, as laws on the books already address such matters. A New Mexico sheriff is critical of enhanced background checks, as they “would impose regulations on hunting buddies or competitive shooters every time they share guns, and he refuses to spend resources investigating such cases.”

Support for these Second Amendment sanctuaries has picked up steam recently, especially in Illinois and New Mexico.

According to Reuters, 63 Illinois counties or municipalities “have passed some form of a firearms sanctuary resolution and more are likely to,” and 25 of New Mexico’s 33 counties “have passed resolutions to support sheriffs who refuse to enforce any firearms laws that they consider unconstitutional.”

Last November, voters in eight of Oregon’s 36 counties approved “Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances,” allowing sheriffs to decide “which state gun laws to enforce.” Second Amendment sanctuary supporters in the Beaver State are planning to place more of these types of “measures on county ballots in 2020 that will direct their officials to resist state gun laws.”

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

As the “rebellion” grows, reports Reuters, a potential clash is brewing.

In Washington last November, where almost 60% of the voters approved raising the minimum age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle to 21, enhancing background checks, and increasing waiting times to buy such guns, “sheriffs in more than half of Washington’s 39 counties have pledged not to enforce it.”

The law is due to take effect this summer, and the governor is behind it. The attorney general has warned sheriffs “ ‘they could be held liable’ if they allow a dangerous person to acquire a firearm later used to do harm.”

Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County wants none of that. He calls the threat a “bluff” and vows not to enforce it because he feels it’s unconstitutional.

“Unfortunately for the governor and the attorney general, they’re not my boss,” Songer told Reuters. “My only boss is the people that elected me to office.”

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

RELATED, from AFP Issue 11 & 12:

Second Amendment Critics Have Good Week in Congress

Trump vows to veto any bills that make buying guns harder.

By Mark Anderson

On Feb. 27, legislation to require background checks on all firearms purchasers, including those buying online and at gun shows, passed the House 240-190. The fervently anti-Second Amendment New York Times declared it “the first significant gun control bill to clear the chamber in a quarter of a century.”

The eight-page bill, called the Bipartisan Background Checks Act (H.R. 8), was sponsored by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.). It received an extra boost from eight Republican representatives: Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Will Hurd (Texas), Pete King (N.Y.), Chris Smith (N.J.), and Fred Upton (Mich.), along with Florida Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Vern Buchanan, and Brian Mast.

The reported mass shooting last year at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. prompted considerable student-led, media-abetted activism that galvanized Democrats to stump even harder for civilian disarmament, commonly called “gun control” by the mass media cartel and most lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Some of these young activists were in the House chamber and cheered when the vote cleared the threshold of 218 to assure passage.

However, H.R. 8 is not the only bill for incremental but stepped-up civilian disarmament to pass the House during the same week. The Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 1112) was approved 228-198 on Feb. 28. The bill’s opening line states that it would “amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee.”

In plainer language, H.R. 1112 would extend the initial review period for a background check from three to 10 days. It was brought forth by House Majority Whip James Clyburn and fellow South Carolina Rep. Joe Cunningham, with key Republican assistance from Rep. Pete King. Seven Democrats bucked party lines and voted against the bill: Anthony Brindisi (N.Y.), Torres Small (N.M.), Kendra Horn (Okla.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Ben McAdams (Utah), Jared Golden (Maine), and Ron Kind (Wisc.). Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick and Chris Smith crossed the partisan divide and joined King in support of the bill.

Proponents of the bill say it’s needed to close the so-called “Charleston loophole.” Their argument is that the current three-day waiting period enabled the young, disturbed shooter in the 2015 Emanuel AME Church massacre in South Carolina to obtain his weapon. Clearly, events such as this are being “weaponized” to stir up emotions and induce people to accept a gravely unlawful act—disarmament of the American people—by blaming guns for crime rather than a host of other, much more plausible causes.

The timing of these bills could be tricky. Readers would do well to note that, as of this writing, approval in the Senate will be appreciably more difficult. Plus, President Donald Trump appears willing to veto both bills.

But nothing can be taken for granted. Calling Senate and House offices (especially if your Congressmember’s name is among those listed above, to either thank or chastise them accordingly no matter what the final outcome) would help ensure that Congress gets the message to leave the Second Amendment alone and help prevent Congress from mustering enough votes to override Trump’s anticipated veto. Moreover, contacting the White House would help encourage President Trump to veto the bills should they make it to his desk. Call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121/ 225-3121 and the White House at (202) 456-1414. To leave comments, please call 202-456-1111.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at [email protected]

Trump’s Border Emergency Order: Brilliant or Betrayal?

From AFP’s executive editor . . .

In AFP Issue 11&12, mailed out Feb. 22 and posted online for digital subscribers, we did something a bit different than usual. Instead of a lengthy special report on pages 16 and 17 in our center-spread, we are publishing a kind of debate, which explores both the positives and negatives of President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure funding for a wall on America’s southern border.

Everyone knows that, for the past few years, Trump has been demanding billions of dollars to build a border wall. His original plan called for taxing all of the remittances that were being sent home to people in Mexico and Central America in order to fund the construction. On the campaign trail, that is how he explained he was going to get those countries to pay for increased border security, but even the Republicans—his own party—fought him on that, and he was eventually forced to go to Congress to ask for taxpayers’ dollars to pay for the project.

Of course, the current House of Representatives, which is controlled by Democrats, balked at the president’s request, prompting a showdown between the two sides. In mid-February, facing yet another government shutdown over the fight, Trump and the Democrats agreed to a massive funding measure that would keep the government open but would provide only a few billion dollars to continue border wall construction.

On the one hand, AFP writer John Friend blasts Trump, arguing that the president caved much too early in the funding battle. Trump let down his base of supporters, remarks John, who then reminds readers that the president had promised from the very start of his presidential campaign that he would make securing the country’s border a priority. Trump was the one who blinked first, says John, losing out to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)— all because he didn’t have the fortitude to stand his ground and shut down the government in his battle with the Democrats in Congress.

On the other side of the argument, our roving editor Mark Anderson argues that Trump is actually a master tactician and negotiator, who has managed to outwit Pelosi and the Democrats. Mark contends that Trump knew he would never get all of the money he asked for, so instead Trump demanded billions more than he actually needed. When the Democrats finally reached a compromise, Trump was handed billions of dollars less than he originally sought—but we shouldn’t look at this as a loss. At that point, Trump was able to declare a national emergency on the border, nabbing even more money than Congress would have ever appropriated for the job—clearly a win for the American people.

Please read these two articles below carefully and let them sink in, then take a moment to pick up a pen or sit down at your computer and send us a letter to tell us what you think. Did Trump lose this fight and fail to get what America needs to lock down our border? Or do you believe Trump actually out-maneuvered and out-negotiated the Democrats, ultimately getting even more than he originally asked for? Finally, would you consider this a win for the American people, or is it yet another loss for this once-great nation?

Many of you already write to us on a consistent basis, providing much-needed feedback on our work and giving us tips on news stories that we should be covering. We can’t tell you enough how helpful this is. We want to know what you, out there in the streets, are seeing and hearing, because we all know we can’t trust the major media or even our own government to tell us the truth about what’s going on in the world today. Our mailing address and online contact form can be found at our Contact Us link, here.

People are increasingly afraid to speak their minds, fearing they will be accused of spreading hate and will be mobbed by activists. In many parts of the country, you can’t even wear hats or t-shirts that show support for the president out of fear that you will be physically assaulted.

Take a stand for our country, and speak your mind. We can’t think of a better place to do it in than American Free Press—the last truly free newspaper in the United States.

Christopher J. Petherick, Executive Editor

Send Us Your Opinion . . .

We’d like to hear from American Free Press readers on this issue. (Click here.) In a poll we conducted several years ago, illegal immigration was the No. 1 concern of readers. Do you think President Trump has surrendered on border security? Do you think that he should have refused to sign this bill? Are his critics correct that his immigration policies are in reality very different from his predecessors? How should he have proceeded? Did he actually get what he wanted? Do you agree that this situation warranted a state of emergency declaration?

Anti-Immigration Hawks Say Trump Has Betrayed America

By John Friend

Some of President Donald Trump’s leading supporters are now openly criticizing him and his administration for signing a recent congressional budget bill that funds the government, thus preventing yet another government shutdown.

Trump signed the bill on Feb. 15 and immediately declared a national emergency because the bill did not contain enough funding for border security and a border wall, sparking outcry and outrage from leading Democrats and other leftist activist organizations, including the ACLU, which vowed to challenge the president in court.

Meanwhile, the crisis along the southern border between the United States and Mexico continues unabated. A number of immigration hawks, including many who were once Trump’s leading supporters and cheerleaders, are outraged at the bill, with William Gheen, the president and spokesman of ALIPAC, a leading lobbying group opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty, calling the recently passed bill a “dastardly and secretive budget bill which incentivizes illegal immigration and child trafficking.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

ALIPAC had been an ardent supporter of Trump during the 2016 election season. Due to the president’s lack of ability to build a wall along the southern border, a signature campaign promise, and his increasing willingness to compromise with Democrats, ALIPAC has joined a growing chorus of former Trump supporters that has come out to criticize the president and his handling of the immigration crisis plaguing the nation.

“Trump just signed into law a bill that 99% of Americans know nothing about, which contains amnesty for millions of illegals, incentives for child trafficking, an expansion of Trump’s deadly catch-and-release policies, less detention space for illegals, reductions of interior immigration law enforcement, new buildings and buses to bring more illegals into the U.S., raising of legal immigration levels, a measly $1.3 billion for border fences, and severe restrictions on where border barriers can be built,” ALIPAC declared in a recent press release.

Gheen’s criticism of Trump did not stop there.

“Trump is a Judas Goat,” Gheen boldly stated following the president’s decision to sign the budget bill. “It is clear to me that Trump is not the man he campaigns to be, and he is complicit in passing a major policy bill in a disgusting way that prevented 99% of Americans from learning what is in the bill until after he made it a law, just like Obamacare. In truth, Trump shares Obama’s tactics and immigration positions. The American patriots who see through Trump’s lies and those who are upset by his signature on the amnesty budget bill today are the Americans we want to represent and give voice to at ALIPAC.”

Columnist Ann Coulter, another former strong supporter of Trump who has been increasingly critical of the president in recent months, voiced her outrage at the spending bill and subsequent declaration of a national emergency. Coulter warned that “it’s over” now that the president signed the spending bill, which essentially amounted to Trump surrendering and selling out his base on the main issues he campaigned on: ending illegal immigration, deporting illegal aliens already living here, and building a border wall to protect the sovereignty of America.

Coulter was equally critical of Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, which she largely views as a ruse to placate his supporters. “The goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for two more years,” Coulter recently tweeted. She also went on to warn her followers—and the president— that once Trump signs the bill, there are no emergency powers to build a wall.

Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a hawkish immigration think tank, published a critique of the spending bill which pointed out that the bill essentially grants local governments along the southern border a veto over the construction of a border barrier in their jurisdiction, tying the hands of the federal government even further. Krikorian also noted that language in the bill prevents U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal immigration enforcement authorities from detaining or removing illegals who have any relationship with an “unaccompanied” minor.

Brandon Darby, a leading reporter for Breitbart News who has been covering border issues for the conservative outlet, said that it is “almost going to be impossible to deport” illegal aliens crossing the border “if they have a minor with them” now that the bill is signed.

Nick Fuentes, a leading young conservative pundit, described the bill as “the worst immigration deal in history.”

Suffice it to say, some of the country’s leading immigration hawks—once the president’s strongest supporters—are none too happy with the recent spending bill and subsequent declaration of a national emergency by the president.

John Friend is a freelance writer who lives in California.

For the Record … Recent Presidential State of Emergency Declarations

President Barack Obama declared a national emergency 11 times and nine of those emergencies are still in effect, according to the Congressional Research Service. Those included orders related to the security of Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, and Burundi. Two more involved preventing malicious cyber-attacks and preventing terrorist funding. In other words, Obama’s declared national emergencies were focused on the “emergency” security of foreign nations more often than not.

President Trump has declared national emergencies four times since taking office. One related to preventing human rights abuses, another was related to the internal situation in Nicaragua, another related to foreign meddling in U.S. elections, and most recently, his state of emergency involving the southern border.

‘Trump the Tactician’ Outsmarted Media, Congress, Got More Funds Than He Sought

By Mark Anderson

The New York Times Feb. 15 edition, in the immediate wake of President Donald Trump’s declaration of an emergency at the southern border—which clears the way for his administration to construct new border-barrier sections and reinforce existing ones—carried no fewer than eight headlines for stories that, in varying degrees, lambasted the president for doing what he feels is necessary to protect the nation’s southern border.

While most media outlets cast the president’s move as a surefire magnet for multiple lawsuits, it’s helpful to peer behind such headlines to gain some appreciation of Trump’s actions.

Mike King, editor of the popular website “The Anti-New York Times,” sees the matter as a transparent attempt on the part of big-box media to mischaracterize Trump’s border-emergency decision—but the catch is that it appears Trump put one over on the media and on what King calls the “Demonrat” Party.

“In classic Sun Tzu fashion,” King wrote in an online post, referring to the ancient Chinese military strategist who advocated deception and guile over raw force, “Trump induces his enemies into believing that he is stupid [or unsophisticated] unto the ways of the politician. This works to his advantage. It is absolutely delightful to behold exactly how clueless the stupid left remains as to the political stratagems being played upon them.”

King pointed to the following New York Times passage as an example of the utter cluelessness of the journalists inhabiting today’s newsrooms: “Trying to regain momentum after losing a grinding two-month battle with lawmakers over funding the wall, Mr. Trump asserted that the flow of drugs, criminals, and illegal immigrants from Mexico constituted a profound threat to national security.”

But as King sees it, “Trump did not ‘lose a two-month battle’ over limited wall funding. He wanted the Demonrats to reject his demands all along. Why? So that he could declare an emergency and get unlimited funding instead.”

And even the Times admitted the funding realities, though it’s not altogether clear if the nation’s purported “newspaper of record” understands the full implications of its own reporting, to wit: “The border emergency declaration . . . enables Mr. Trump to divert $3.6 billion budgeted for military construction projects to the border wall, White House officials said. [He] will also use more traditional presidential budgetary discretion to tap $2.5 billion from counter-narcotics programs and $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund. Combined with the $1.375 billion authorized for fencing in a spending package passed by Congress [on Feb. 14, to avert another shutdown], Mr. Trump would then have about $8 billion in all to advance construction of new barriers and repairs or replacement of existing barriers along the border this year, significantly more than the $5.7 billion that Congress refused to give him.”

Thus, it’s a safe bet that what Trump did—which the media, tone-deaf to well-honed strategies, failed to grasp—was to purposely ask Congress for much more money ($5.7 billion) than he realistically thought he would get from the normal funding system with the Democrats running the House, in order to actually receive between $1 billion and $2 billion (he got $1.375 billion), while knowing full well that the emergency declaration would net him even more than the $5.7 billion. And it did—$2.3 billion more, totaling $8 billion. Meanwhile, fewer new tax dollars are needed and more existing funds, already budgeted, are being used—funds that evidently were pre-arranged so they could be used for the border.

This is a classic case of Trump the tactician at his very best.

Those who believe, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her ilk, that the border dangers on which the emergency is based are illusory need only recall that some 700 illegal entrants were arrested in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas border sector alone the day after Trump’s Jan. 10 visit to the region—a calculated lead-up to his eventual emergency declaration since his visit, covered by AFP, revealed broad Hispanic-American support for the wall. Meanwhile, informational forums in the valley also covered by this Texas-based AFP writer over the last few years have revealed that people from countries as far away as Pakistan and China are entering the U.S. illegally from the south, besides Central Americans and Mexicans.

And unknown elements, including criminal and terrorist figures, are known to be adjoined to the flow of average people, many of whom, including children, are endangered by open-border areas that incentivize the trafficking of people along with drugs, illegal guns, and other contraband. There is no “illusion.”

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. He invites your thoughtful comments and story ideas at [email protected].


Slandered Kentucky Students Fight Back

Those who accused the Catholic kids of bogus hate crime have been told to retract their stories or face court.

By Donald Jeffries

On Feb. 4, lawyers representing Kentucky’s Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann and his family announced that they’d sent letters to media outlets, individual journalists, celebrities, and Catholic organizations. The letters warned that, after a brief grace period, if they didn’t issue a retraction or public apology, they risked libel and defamation lawsuits.

Among those receiving the letters were presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, actress Alyssa Milano, “journalists” Erin Burnett, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, Bill Maher, and David Brooks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, HBO, TMZ, the dioceses of Covington and Lexington, the archdioceses of Louisville and Baltimore, and celebrities Kathy Griffin and Jim Carrey.

Attorney Todd McMurtry declared that the endless public slurs against the youngster “permanently stained Nick’s reputation.”

He added: “They know they crossed the line. Do they want 12 people in Kentucky to decide their fate? I don’t think so.”

McMurtry offered his services pro bono, and is working in tandem with high-powered lawyer Lin Wood, best known for representing the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey.

“We want to change the conversation. We don’t want this to happen again,” McMurtry stated. “We want to teach people a lesson. There was a rush by the media to believe what it wanted to believe versus what actually happened.”

The Catholic students were on a field trip to Washington, D.C., attending a March for Life Event. While virtually every mainstream media outlet aired only a brief snippet of video and blasted the 16-year-old Sandmann for “disrespecting” 64-year-old Native American elder Nathan Phillips by “smirking” at him and blocking his path, extended video of the incident posted online quickly told a far different story. A group of Black Hebrew Israelites can be seen and heard for several minutes, shouting profanities, anti- Catholic, homophobic, and racial slurs, first at the Native Americans and then with even greater fervor at the high school kids from Kentucky.

The kids never responded with anything more than their school spirit chants, and they asked the permission of their chaperones before doing that. The footage also shows that Phillips and the Native Americans approached the high school kids, and their path was never blocked. Phillips focused in on Sandmann, and kept beating his drum until he was only a few inches from the youngster’s face. If anyone was doing the intimidating, it was Phillips.

Initially, Phillips was converted into a saintly figure in the media. He claimed to be a Vietnam veteran, but this was subsequently disproved. It was also discovered that Phillips had recently tried to disrupt a Catholic mass, and has a history of social activism.

Press accounts and celebrity tweets concentrated on the fact that some of the students, including Sandmann, were wearing “Make America Great Again” hats. Most shocking was the fact that Covington High School officials immediately condemned their own students, and Catholic Bishop John Stowe of the Diocese of Lexington wrote an op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader in which he criticized the Catholic students.

Intimidation Game, Strassel
How the Left bullies Americans out of free speech. On sale now at the AFP Store.

Diocese of Covington Bishop Roger Foys publicly condemned the students as well, although he did later apologize. Stowe, however, would not back down, standing by his op-ed, which declared, “Without . . . placing the blame entirely on these adolescents, it astonishes me that any students participating in a pro-life activity on behalf of their school and their Catholic faith could be wearing apparel sporting the slogans of a president who denigrates the lives of immigrants, refugees, and people from countries that he describes with indecent words and haphazardly endangers with life-threatening policies.” After later ludicrously calling the incident an opportunity for “a teaching moment,” Stowe continued to be triggered by their head gear, maintaining, “I come back to that they shouldn’t have been wearing those hats in the first place.”

“For the mob to just go tear apart a 16-year-old boy is inexcusable,” McMurtry said. “He’ll never be able to get away from this.”

CNN and other mainstream media organs grudgingly admitted their rush to judgment, and by Feb. 13, headlined one story, “Report finds no evidence of ‘offensive or racist statements’ by Kentucky students,” regarding an inquiry conducted by the Diocese of Covington. Just what kind of investigation was necessary beyond watching the entire incident on videotape was unclear. The initially critical Bishop Foys was quoted as saying that the Covington kids “were placed in a situation that was at once bizarre and even threatening” and their reaction was “expected and one might even say laudatory.”

In a Feb. 8 public statement, attorney Lin Wood announced that “Nathan Phillips will be sued” and that the first round of lawsuits would begin “within two weeks.” Wood has followed through on his promise. On Feb. 19, the first lawsuit was filed on behalf of Sandmann against The Washington Post, seeking $250 million in both compensatory and punitive damages.

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by AFP BOOKSTORE.

A Real Zombie Apocalypse

Have the neocons backed Trump into a nuclear corner?

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

Is the Pentagon planning a zombie apocalypse? I’m not just referring to CONPLAN 888, a 2011 training exercise envisioning U.S. forces in final battles against the eight known varieties of zombies. In case you were wondering, those are: pathogenic zombies, radiation zombies, evil magic zombies, space zombies, bioengineered zombies, symbiont zombies, and vegetarian zombies (“must eat grrraaaaains!”) And, no, I didn’t make any of that up. Your tax dollars did.

The real zombie apocalypse scenario, the one we should all be terrified of, is nuclear war. And our own U.S. government—the only government that has detonated nuclear weapons over cities—is planning to do it again. We are sleepwalking into a zombie apocalypse, and our own leaders are taking us there. Or to paraphrase Pogo: “We have met the evil zombies, and they are us.”

This all-too-realistic zombie apocalypse is brilliantly described by novelist Cormac McCarthy in The Road: a cold, ruined world dimmed and buried beneath gray ash, where nothing grows, canned food is the only currency, and cannibalism the road to survival. This nuclear winter scenario is the probable result of any war involving hundreds of multi-megaton bombs—or any other firestorm-producing weapon. The late Dr. Robert Bowman, head of the proto-SDI (“Star Wars”) program under presidents Ford and Carter, told this writer that, while he was directing the program, the U.S. had already developed a highly classified satellite-based weapon that could incinerate entire cities from space. If they had that in the 1970s, what do they have now?

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

Col. Bowman, a Cal Tech trained Ph.D. rocket scientist, resigned as a whistleblower to protest the offensive orientation of the Star Wars program. Sold to the public as a defensive system for shooting down incoming Soviet missiles, the real purpose of SDI was to facilitate a planned U.S. surprise first strike. As Bowman explained for decades to anyone who would listen, satellite platforms are inherently vulnerable to surprise attacks; they won’t survive to play a defensive role. So the SDI program focused on offense: suddenly and unexpectedly blinding enemy satellites, stealthily destroying enemy missile silos with such weapons as the ultra-classified “artificial meteorite,” and (following the surprise first strike by the “good guys”) shooting down the few surviving enemy missiles. This first strike doctrine is even more entrenched today, thanks to the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Its purpose is not so much to destroy the world as soon as possible as to bully other nations into compliance with U.S. wishes. But eventual world-destruction is a likely unintended consequence.

The eve of destruction may be fast approaching. Under President Barack Obama, the Deep State ramped up its nuclear-backed bullying of Russia. When Donald Trump got elected by questioning the Deep State, decrying “American exceptionalism,” and striving to repair relations with Russia, the permanent war party declared that “Russian meddling” was to blame for Hillary Clinton’s defeat—and unleashed a wave of Russophobia. Speaking of unleashing waves, the Russians have responded by building new MAD (mutually assured destruction) weapons including the Poseidon 100 megaton high-speed nuclear torpedo that could drown America’s seaboards under radioactive tsunamis.

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Trump, cornered by the Deep State hawks, cannot pursue peace with Russia. Whenever he tries, his political enemies insinuate that he is a Russian stooge. The whole political class, both Democrats and Republicans, and the whole mainstream media, including its left and right wings, stand united behind the neocon war-on-Russia project. Obviously, the neocons are still riding high despite the horrific failures of their 9/11-triggered invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In early February, Trump succumbed to political pressure and pulled out of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. His neocon advisors, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, cheered lustily. Vladimir Putin countered by announcing that Russia will be deploying large numbers of intermediate range nuclear missiles on its European borders. A new arms race is picking up steam. As artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms take over nuclear command and control systems, will they recognize the “strategic advantages” of launching a first strike? Will AI have the human wisdom of Soviet Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, who disobeyed orders and singlehandedly saved the world by overriding computer warnings in 1983 of a U.S. nuclear attack?

“Defense intellectuals,” those well-paid policy wonks who follow the psychopathic algorithms of game theory to their logical and horrifying conclusions, must think they and their pet supercomputers are pretty darned smart. Like John Nash, they have beautiful minds. If some of the brains housing those beautiful minds are devoured by starving zombies and barbecued over rubble fires in the midst of a decade-long nuclear winter, I suppose some sort of cosmic justice will have been served.

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

No Collusion

In spite of Robert Mueller et al.’s best efforts for nearly two years to find something damning to pin on President Trump, the Senate has finally admitted there is no evidence Trump undermined the 2016 U.S. election. Sen. Richard Burr’s statement to CBS News made the front page of AFP Issue 9 & 10, just mailed and available online now. 

By Donald Jeffries

For close to two years, the United States government has been chasing a farfetched theory that Donald Trump and members of his staff “colluded” with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election.

After conducting some 200 interviews and sifting through 300,000 documents in the course of their investigation, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has all but admitted the obvious: There is no evidence of any such collusion.

This was reflected in a headline from NBC News in early February, “Senate Has Uncovered No Direct Evidence of Conspiracy Between Trump Campaign and Russia.”

In a recent interview with CBS News, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (N.C.) stated, “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Vice-Chairman Democrat Mark Warner (Va.) countered, “I’m not going to reach any final conclusions until we finish our report.” Warner alluded to “Russian agents, Russian actors reaching out to the Trump organization with promise of dirt on . . . Clinton.” Burr also mentioned the Obama administration’s response to alleged Russian interference in the election, and the committee would be releasing information on that within a “matter of weeks.”

The House intelligence committee, now chaired by a Democrat, plans to reopen and expand its own investigation into the matter. The Republican-led House reported last year that it had found no collusion. “If the committee is driven based upon the facts that we have at hand, I have a very difficult time understanding how you can come to two different conclusions,” Burr responded to CBS. “Unless, for the first time, you let politics come into play.”

The House committee is chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of Trump’s most partisan political opponents. Trump recently accused Schiff of “trying to build a name for himself. And I think that’s fine because that’s what they do. But there would be no reason to do that. No other politician has to go through that.”

Predictably, Trump responded to the committee chairman’s remarks with a passionate tweet: “Senator Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than 200 interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found no collusion between Trump and Russia! Is anybody really surprised by this?”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was more emphatic in his comments during a recent appearance on Fox News.

“There has been no evidence of collusion,” Risch declared. “It is not there. I was a prosecutor. I know what evidence is. It is simply not there. People need to listen to the president when he says that. . . . How long can this go on? It has got to come to an end.”

Risch went on to note, “I have been a governor, almost 30 years in our state Senate. I have never seen the hate and vitriol against an individual that there is against this president.”

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State  has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by AFP BOOKSTORE.

Schools Now Military Recruitment Centers

Allowing the military mindset to have free rein in schools is a dangerous idea. S.T. Patrick argues, if we are going to demilitarize our kids, we must also redefine the meaning of both “hero” and “heroic.”

By S.T. Patrick

When a school shooting occurs in America, the reflexive conventional wisdom is to look at gun control, further regulating the weapon. That would be feasible and even logical if the weapon controlled the individual. However, acts are the end result of thought processes, thought patterns, and social indoctrination. Therefore, we, as a society, should look with diligence at those factors that have normalized violence, a rigid adherence to dominance, and a twisted view of authority in our high schools. The militarization of public schools has done much to normalize a way of thinking that stresses violence as an effective means to an end.

While in ninth grade at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSDHS), Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, was a member of JROTC, the Army’s Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. Cruz wore his JROTC polo shirt while being arrested. It was something of which, on that day, he was proud. In the spring of 2017, Marksman 1st Lieutenant Diaz won first place in the Florida State JROTC championships in an event called “Standing Rifle.” The JROTC program at MSDHS in Parkland advanced to the Florida state championships again in the spring of 2018 without a significant public challenge, just months after the shooting and months after the anti-gun protests began.

The Diversity Delusion, MacDonald
“How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine our Culture,” Brand new at AFP!

While actively promoting JROTC, Florida schools also have strict anti-gun and anti-weapon policies. It’s like forming a basketball team while simultaneously banning all sports equipment on school grounds.

After a major lobbying effort from the U.S. military, states responded by adding JROTC programs to a much larger percentage of public schools. Today, over 1,600 schools have marksmanship programs, with students as young as 13 enrolled. Florida has been especially receptive to JROTC programs, allowing entrants to substitute the JROTC curriculum in place of life management, physical science, physical education, art, and biology.

The commitment of Florida’s Department of Education to JROTC is now so entrenched that it includes JROTC coursework being weighted as an advanced placement course. While Broward County, Fla. requires that all teachers hold a teaching certification, a bachelor’s degree, and some sort of master’s-level coursework within a required number of years, many JROTC “teachers” are retired enlisted soldiers who possess no such credentials. Many have little or no college education.

Kingdom Identity

The late peace activist and alternative historian John Judge fought for decades to end the militarization on high school and college campuses around America. If a recruiter was allowed on a nearby campus, Judge would push for an opportunity to set up a table nearby. He would tell high school and college kids why they shouldn’t get involved with JROTC or enlist in the U.S. military. At the 2014 Celebration of the Life of John Judge, friend and anti-militarization activist Pat Elder spoke about how Judge influenced his own work.

“He spoke of a poverty draft and starving a wicked war machine of its most vital resource. And he never strayed from his most fervent nonviolent stance,” Elder said. “John’s life was an epiphany for all of us. He opened my eyes to the Pentagon’s invasion of our high schools, and he taught me how to resist it. He understood the inherently unfair arrangement between recruiter and recruited, especially the psychological training and the advantage recruiters have. I initially saw it in terms of military recruiters lying to my sons and my daughters in the high school lunch room. But John helped me to connect the dots.”

If we are going to demilitarize our kids, we must also redefine the meaning of both “hero” and “heroic.” If we keep applauding as uniforms carry bags through airports, if we insist on attaching heroism to every militarized police officer, and if we continue thanking every enlistee for their “service,” then we will continue to glorify the same forces that wreak havoc worldwide. When we train our kids to shoot well and adhere to a strict military mindset in their most vulnerable psychological years, are we training elite killers who will shoot at designated enemies beneath the country’s flag, or are we training kids who will shoot at their own designated enemies from the school library? As a teenager, where do those paths cross and what dangers are inherent?

To be clear, JROTC are not fathers in Montana who speak to their sons and daughters about conservation, a love of the land, and a grateful respect for all wildlife and nature. These are the first steps of enlistment, a long-perfected public relations tactic to recruit students at young ages.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is [email protected]

The Women’s March You Won’t Hear About

Hysterical leftists condemn a women’s group, which organized one of the recent women’s marches on New York City, for demanding rights for women of all races. Here’s more about the organization working for the advancement of all women—regardless of race, religion, creed, or party affiliation.

By Tilton Adler

On Jan. 19, neither frigid winds nor freezing temperatures could prevent 200,000 activists from gathering near Central Park West for the third annual Women’s March Alliance (WMA) rally in New York City. Demonstrating for the advancement of all women—regardless of race, religion, creed, or party affiliation—this particular women’s march was a welcome alternative to the women’s demonstrations organized by the far left that news cycles would lead you to believe are the only scene in town.

Ironically, elsewhere in the city—scheduled intentionally to compete with the WMA rally—Women’s March Inc. (WMI) gathered to present to the media the image of radical, shrieking women that so many in America have grown accustomed to seeing.

What this meant was that two different marches were held by two very different organizations—yet they were presented to the viewing public as being one event. It’s no wonder there is rampant confusion surrounding today’s women’s rights movement.

WMA represents conservative women and men who feel that liberals and the WMI have gone way too far to the left. Perhaps an unintended consequence of the #MeToo movement, many supporters are increasingly frustrated with fringe progressives and in-your-face radical liberals who have largely characterized the women’s movement to end sexual harassment, among other issues. Instead of demonizing long-accepted gender definitions and painting all men as evil, WMA’s goal is to represent those who feel their voices have been drowned out by the radical left.

Protesters’ signs ranged from “Why I March: Corruption-Racism-Climate Change-Human Rights” to “No One Is Free When Others Are Oppressed.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The organization is being spearheaded by Katherine Siemionko, who was raised in a conservative Christian household, which voted for Trump. She is university educated and has 15 years of experience in corporate America as a former vice president with Goldman Sachs.

In 2017, Siemionko organized the first Women’s March on New York City and shortly thereafter left behind the oppressive corporate glass ceiling to form the non-profit WMA.

Yet, despite her experience and fervent work advocating for all women’s rights, she has faced heavy criticism from the activist left for being a white woman and has even been accused of not standing for “real” women, as she “can’t understand their strife.”

Siemionko responds to this false assertion in a video interview with news and commentary website “Vice News”: “We have to stop looking at each other as skin colors. . . . I see that as a copout, the moment you say, ‘You’re white; therefore, you’re racist.’ . . . It’s overly politically correct. Your speech is inhibited by this concept that any words you say may offend somebody. If we continue to nitpick, we will never advance as a society. The left has to stop eating itself.”

This hasn’t stopped the radical leftist WMI from continuing to attack WMA. In what has become a “she said/she said” social media battle, the women’s movement in general has been accused of petering out, of becoming distracted, and of losing focus.

WMA refutes this accusation and notes the mainstream media is doing more harm than good by reporting only on the hysterical, far-left organizers as if they represent all women.

The future remains uncertain for the WMA, but Siemionko says she will likely organize the 2020 march to coincide with International Women’s Day and hopes to end the political partisanship that has been associated with the movement.

Siemionko believes there is room for conservatives and liberals in this movement with no strings attached.

Tilton Adler is a freelance author based in Florida.

Antifa Leader Arrested, Charged With Terrorism

An attack on U.S. Marines by neo-Bolsheviks will not go unpunished—this time. Finally, law enforcement has arrested a well-known antifa leader, charged with multiple felonies, for his blatant acts of political violence and terrorism.

By John Friend

A prominent leader of the radical, violent, far-left antifa group in Washington, D.C. was recently arrested and charged with multiple felonies related to an attack on two U.S. Marines in Philadelphia in November of last year.

Joseph “Jose” Alcoff, more commonly known as “Chepe” in antifa circles, was arrested and charged with 17 offenses relating to the unprovoked attack on his perceived political adversaries, a common strategy employed by radical antifa activists whose blatant acts of political violence and terrorism have been largely covered up and downplayed by the mainstream mass media.

In the past few years, law enforcement officials have largely failed to adequately investigate and prosecute crimes committed by radical leftwing activists, including violence carried out by antifa groups against their political rivals, particularly since the heated 2016 election season.

In a positive development, Alcoff was charged with “multiple counts of aggravated assault, ethnic intimidation, conspiracy, and terroristic threats, and one count of robbery while inflicting serious bodily injury,” according to Andrew Kerr, an investigative reporter for “The Daily Caller,” a conservative media outlet that has commendably covered leftwing political violence and criminality. Kerr’s reporting played an instrumental role in the prosecution of Alcoff.

Intimidation Game, Strassel
Political correspondent Kim Strassel on increasing intimidation by the Left to bully Americans out of free speech. On sale now.

During the violent confrontation, one of the Marines, Alejandro Godinez, shouted at the mob of antifa activists, which included Alcoff, “I’m Mexican!” after the antifa radicals began verbally abusing the Marines and accusing them of being “Nazis” and supporting white supremacy and racism. Alcoff and his associates then began calling Godinez a “spic” and a “wetback,” derogatory ethnic slurs against Mexicans, according to Godinez’s court testimony.

Incredibly, for years Alcoff had been living a double life as a campaign manager for a prominent D.C.-based non-profit group called Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) while also being a leader for Smash Racism DC, an infamous antifa group that has been responsible for numerous acts of political violence, intimidation, and outright terrorism. Smash Racism DC played a major role in organizing a protest outside Fox News personality Tucker Carlson’s home in Washington, D.C. late last year. They were also involved in the high-profile confrontation of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a D.C.-based restaurant, which made national headlines last year as well.

Alcoff has been associated with several high-profile Democrats over the years due to his work with the progressive nonprofit organization.

According to Kerr, “Alcoff was quoted in press releases from Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, appeared at an event with Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in March, and has been pictured alongside Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters.”

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

Brad Griffin, a leading conservative commentator and blogger who has also been exposing the violent shenanigans of the radical left, praised the prosecution of Alcoff in a recent blog post highlighting his arrest despite federal authorities’ failure to pursue federal charges that have been leveled against rightwing activists.

“It sure is strange that the FBI and the DOJ don’t seem to be that interested in this incident, which involved multiple antifa cells engaging in a violent hate crime,” Griffin commented.

Numerous rightwing activists, including members of the Rise Above Movement, have been charged with federal conspiracy to riot charges as well as other federal offenses for their participation in various political rallies over the course of the past year or so. Similar federal charges have thus far failed to materialize against radical leftwing activists.

Alcoff’s arrest, however, is a step in the right direction for those who care about the rule of law and political freedom in the United States of America in 2019.

John Friend is a freelance author based in California.

Deep State Targets Corsi Over Russiagate Rubbish

Jerome Corsi, now embroiiled in the “Russiagate nonsense,” says they are “desperate to put me into prison and shut me up.” He talked with author and now radio show host Donald Jeffries about why he believes Robert Mueller has come after him, and what he intends to do about it.

By Donald Jeffries

This writer was privileged to interview Jerome Corsi recently on the weekly radio show, “I Protest.”* Corsi has become embroiled in the “Russiagate” nonsense, with inferences that he somehow “colluded” with shadowy Russians and/or banished whistleblower Julian Assange. The establishment contends that Corsi “obstructed justice” by destroying or lying about emails.

“I’m 72 years old and have never committed a crime,” Corsi declared. “I don’t have as much as a parking ticket to my record.”

Early on in the interview Corsi said in regard to his legal issues, “I can talk about every single aspect of it. I intend on exposing [special prosecutor Robert] Mueller. I know that they are desperate to put me into prison and shut me up.”

At another point, he declared, “I think my two biggest crimes are that I supported Donald Trump, and I believe in Jesus Christ. . . . Coming from Harvard, that makes me some kind of criminal.”

Deep State, Chaffetz
Available from the AFP Online Store.

Corsi spoke of the two groups of Russians Mueller has indicted, none of whom will be coming to America for trial.

“They’re all just show indictments,” said Corsi.

He rightly pointed out that most Americans are too “dumbed down” to know the difference between an indictment and a conviction.

“Why doesn’t Mueller just indict Putin?” Corsi asked. “Another Russian who’s never going to stand trial.”

Corsi described as “grueling” the 40 hours, in six sessions, that he spent talking with Mueller. Corsi set out to cooperate to the best of his ability, bringing in his laptops and external hard drive, which had a “time machine” application.

“Nothing could be permanently erased,” Corsi stated. “It was still in the backup system.”

Corsi gave them his cell phones, user names, and passwords to his email accounts, “anything they wanted.”

“I didn’t lie,” Corsi maintained. “I had memory mistakes. With the way they question you, it’s impossible not to have memory mistakes. They have an eight-inch-thick book with everything from me in it. They won’t let you see it.”

Regarding the plea deal offered him, Corsi said, “I just could not bring myself to swear to God that I committed a crime I didn’t commit.”

The plea deal was hardly lenient anyhow. For a full year, if Corsi said or wrote anything they didn’t like, he could be brought back before a judge and “get five years or whatever in prison.”

Corsi told them, “If that’s what America has come to, then take a 72-year-old guy and throw me in prison. I’ll die in prison. I’m not going to lie to save my hide.”

He added, “Our government has become the George the Third that our founding fathers rebelled against, on steroids. If the government is saying something, my first assumption is they’re lying.”

He likened the “abusive techniques” of American investigators to those of the KGB or Gestapo.

The mainstream media has peddled the ridiculous “Russiagate” story, which is a twisted foster child of the very real corruption revealed in DNC emails, exposing efforts to undermine the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, in order to benefit Deep State favorite Hillary Clinton. There was the corresponding murder of young DNC staffer Seth Rich, whom Assange all but named as the leaker of the emails involved.

Corsi is determined to fight the absurd allegations, declaring that the cause of freedom has “been paid for with the lives and blood of a lot of patriots.”

Corsi said he authorized Mueller and his team to get his phone records.

“Mueller doesn’t have a crime,” he said. “They have invented a crime—collusion with Russia.”

Hidden History, Jeffries
Exposing modern crimes, conspiracies and political coverups at the AFP Online Store!

The real reason for the show trial, said Corsi, was that Mueller was out to get Donald Trump indicted or impeached from the beginning and was only looking for evidence to fit his predetermined conclusion that the president is a criminal.

Corsi is not some predictable right-wing zealot. He went to Harvard and wrote his dissertation on the right of The New York Times and The Washington Post to publish the “Pentagon Papers,” the lengthy report that was leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the media and showed how the U.S. had engaged in a secret war in Vietnam and Cambodia unbeknownst to the American people.

Full disclosure: Corsi has written blurbs for all of this writer’s books, including Survival of the Richest: How the Corruption of the Marketplace and the Disparity of Wealth Created the Greatest Conspiracy of All, not exactly standard conservative reading.

The idea that Corsi, or Roger Stone, or Steve Bannon, or Paul Manafort, or Donald Trump himself, “colluded” with Russia to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency ought to be scoffed at by even the most gullible members of the public. America has a long history of voting fraud, from “Landslide” Lyndon Johnson and his dead demographic base to the widespread corruption exposed in the Collier Brothers’ book Votescam. The Russians had nothing to do with any of that.

Corsi’s legal case demonstrates that legal and political persecution are alive and well in this country.

*“I Protest,” the weekly radio show hosted by Donald Jeffries, airs Fridays from 7-9 p.m. Eastern on the huge “IHeartRadio” network, and online at

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.

Gillette Feels Backlash After Running Male-Bashing Ad

By Donald Jeffries

A new ad promoting Gillette razors exemplifies the radical left social justice mindset that has taken a firm hold on American culture. As is typical of commercials these days, the white males are portrayed negatively, with women and non-white males attempting to free them from their astounding incompetence and bad behavior.

The Gillette ad comes complete with a suitable title, “Believe.” Clearly referencing the #MeToo movement, the company has declared that men must hold each other “accountable.” The commercial was watched an incredible 2 million- plus times in the first 48 hours, and the response was decidedly negative, receiving only 23,000 “likes” and 214,000 “dislikes.”

In one scene, an absurdly over-the-top-lecherous white male with a Snidely Whiplash look on his face is reaching out to grab the backside of an African-American maid. The faces of male “reason” in the ad were all black, attempting to hold back their misogynistic, bullying white counterparts.

Irate viewers commented that the ad was “feminist propaganda,” and one wrote, “In less than two minutes you managed to alienate your biggest sales group . . . .”

“Boycott Gillette” was quickly trending on Twitter, with untold numbers of former Gillette customers swearing off the brand’s products forever.

Kingdom Identity

So far, Gillette, which is owned by Procter & Gamble, is refusing to apologize or back down. Gillette president Gary Coombe stated, “Effective immediately, Gillette will review all public-facing content against a set of defined standards meant to ensure we fully reflect the ideals of respect, accountability and role modelling in the ads we run, the images we publish to social media, the words we choose, and more.” In today’s corporate world, there are obviously agendas beyond profits.

The Gillette commercial is bad enough by itself, but, in today’s culture of political correctness run amok, the trouble keeps piling on.

In early January, the American Psychological Association, one of the governing bodies for U.S. psychologists, issued new guidelines for clinicians working with boys and men that suggest traditional masculinity is “psychologically harmful,” a pathology that should be discouraged in men and boys.

Ryon McDermott, a psychologist at the University of South Alabama, who helped draft the guidelines, stated, “What is gender in the 2010s? It’s no longer just this male-female binary . . . . If we can change men, we can change the world.”

So what kinds of masculine traits do these radical activists say are bad? Bizarrely, they claim that even a male characteristic like “competitiveness” leads to bad behavior and is something that should be discouraged, especially among boys.

“You would never know that maleness was ever synonymous with anything good, reading this report,” said American Enterprise Institute scholar and former ethics philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, among other titles, and cohost of the popular “Femsplainers” podcast. (See other article posted today, “Femsplainers Battle Radical Feminism.”)

Hillary Clinton & Radical Feminists
Texe Marrs predicted today’s radical feminism in 1993! Read his warnings, now deeply discounted at the AFP Online Store.

Today, American television viewers are all too familiar with the goofy, clueless father (especially white fathers), whose wife utterly dominates him and whose children have zero respect for him. This weak, worthless stereo typical figure has supplanted the strong, dominant fathers in sitcoms decades ago, in programs like “Father Knows Best” and “Leave it to Beaver.”

Today’s commercials are even more poisonously anti-male. They all seem to meld into one: The white male, in particular, is dumpy and woefully ignorant with a face that cries out to be dominated. The woman is bright, competent, and very, very aggressive. The white male’s children roll their eyes in exasperation at him and can fool him without the slightest effort.

In a 2018 essay in The New York Times, Michael Ian Black wrote: “The past 50 years have redefined what it means to be female in America. Girls today are told that they can do anything, be anyone. They’ve absorbed the message: They’re outperforming boys in school at every level. But it isn’t just about performance. To be a girl today is to be the beneficiary of decades of conversation about the complexities of womanhood, its many forms and expressions. Boys, though, have been left behind. No commensurate movement has emerged to help them navigate toward a full expression of their gender. It’s no longer enough to ‘be a man’—we no longer even know what that means.”

It doesn’t take a sociologist to understand how damaging all of this can be to boys today. Is it any wonder that suicide among white males has skyrocketed in the past few years?

Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of two books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.