The ‘Ugly’ Truth About Mass Shootings

• Media hype at odds with facts in regard to ‘rampant shootings’

By Keith Johnson

Though most gun-control advocates would have us believe that mass shootings in the United States are on the rise, there’s at least one who disputes that claim and insists that expanded background checks and assault-weapon bans will not dissuade those intent on carrying out violent acts.

In a recent study entitled “Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown,” Northeastern University criminology professor James Alan Fox, Ph.D., dispelled several myths propagated by the mainstream media and anti-Second Amendment groups concerning gun violence.

For instance, despite claims to the contrary, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics analyzed by Fox prove that there have been, on average, roughly 20 mass shootings per year in the U.S. over the past three decades with no notable increase in recent years. For some perspective, around 80 million Americans own firearms.

“Public discourse is grounded in myth and misunderstanding about the nature of the offense and those who perpetrate it,” Fox wrote. “Without minimizing the pain and suffering of the hundreds of those who have been victimized in recent attacks, the facts clearly say that there has been no increase in mass shootings and certainly no epidemic.”

Fox also examined data compiled by the gun-control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns and found that only 14 of the 93 mass shootings analyzed from January 2009 through September 2013 involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. Furthermore, Fox determined that none of the “assailants in those shootings were prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms because of mental illness,” thus debunking the myth that “enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of murderers.”

Though Fox confirms what many pro-gun groups have suspected all along, it doesn’t mean he’s on their side. In fact, Fox concludes that eliminating “the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take,” which, in his opinion, begins with “abolishing the Second Amendment.”

“The fact that gun control, expanded psychiatric services, and increased security measures are limited in their ability to prevent dreadful mass shootings doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try,” Fox wrote. “Gun restrictions and other initiatives may not stop the next mass murderer, wherever he or she may strike, but we can enhance the well-being of millions of Americans in the process. Besides, doing something is better than doing nothing.”

In an effort to determine the real value of Fox’s recent study, this AMERICAN FREE PRESS reporter spoke with prominent gun-rights advocate John R. Lott, Jr., author of the book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Although Lott agrees that there has been no dramatic increase in multiple victim shootings, his research has determined that one particular kind of mass murder has become more common in recent days because of the press attention it has received.

“What’s happening is that there’s been more news coverage on these school shootings,” Lott said. “When the President and others make a big deal about these things, it creates an incentive for others to follow down that road.”

Lott goes on to say that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza is a perfect example of a “copy cat” killer who was inspired by other high-profile mass murderers.

“Lanza planned his attack for over two years,” he said. “He put together spreadsheets from data collected on past mass shooting—including the number of people killed, the types of weapons used and the amount of press coverage—and determined that those who had the highest body count got the most media attention. There are people out there who want to commit suicide while making a name for themselves in the process.”



 

Though school shootings in the U.S. have increased, Lott maintains that freer access to firearms is not a significant contributing factor.

“When we look around the world, three of the four worst mass shootings of school children occurred in Europe,” said Lott. “Two of them were in Germany, which has extremely strict gun-control laws. You basically can’t get a semi-automatic weapon there and it takes a year to go through psychological screenings to buy a rifle. But that hasn’t stopped people from obtaining illegal firearms and engaging in these types of atrocities.”

Lott said that the 2011 mass shooting perpetrated by Anders Breivik in Norway is yet another example of where a determined murderer was able to obtain weapons despite strict gun-control laws.

“Breivik killed 69 people and wounded 110 others, more than any other mass shooting” Lott said. “But that can’t be blamed on guns. When you have people planning these attacks many months or years in advance, it’s very hard to stop them from obtaining some kind of weapon. If they can’t get firearms, they’ll learn to make bombs. The point is, if they want to kill as many people as possible, they’ll find some way to do it.”

While Lott does not agree with all the conclusions drawn in Fox’s study, he does believe they serve as a valuable insight into the minds of some gun-control advocates, who are now starting to realize that tighter restrictions are unrealistic and counterproductive.

As he explains: “We just had the police chief in Detroit coming out in favor of arming citizens. And this is a very liberal city with a majority of Democrat voters. Even the head of Interpol, which is Europe’s version of the FBI, now admits that secure areas (gun-free zones) are a magnet for terrorist attacks. These are people who’ve changed their views [on firearms ownership] over time because they’ve seen first-hand that these prohibitive rules simply don’t work.”

Donate to us

Keith Johnson in an investigative journalist and creator of the Revolt of the Plebs.




Earn College Credits for Bashing Whites: Jewish Professor Creates ‘White Privilege’ Confab

• Annual conference seeks to blame whites for world’s ills

By John Friend

The 15th annual White Privilege Conference (WPC) is scheduled to take place in Madison, Wisconsin, March 26-29. According to the official website of the conference, the aim of the WPC is to examine “challenging concepts of privilege and oppression” while offering “solutions and team building strategies to work toward a more equitable world.” In truth, though, white privilege is yet another bogus theory concocted in liberal and academic circles that seeks to degrade white people and the contributions they have made to the Western world.

The website also specifically states that the conference is not meant to “attack, degrade or beat up on white folks” and that the issues examined and analyzed during the conference pertaining to privilege are “beyond skin color.”

If this is indeed the case, many wonder why the conference is called the White Privilege Conference in the first place.



 

“What struck me immediately was the hypocrisy of equality mongers dedicating an entire event to lambasting a single race,” Brad Trun, who maintains the popular “Libertarian Realist” website, explained to this reporter. “If members of this purportedly privileged race were to organize an event celebrating white achievements, it would spark outrage. It certainly wouldn’t receive support from universities or governments.”

The WPC has a variety of partners, including the Anti-Defamation League, the City of Seattle’s Office for Civil Rights, the YMCA of Greater Milwaukee, and a host of other non-profit organizations, university departments and offices, and “social justice” organizations. High school, undergraduate, and graduate students are able to earn credit for their participation in the conference.

The concept of so-called white privilege originates in Marxist and anti-white academic and “social justice” circles, gaining traction in the mainstream over the past decade or so. Activists and university professors teach courses, lead seminars, write books and give speeches denouncing white privilege and “white oppression,” which has created a strong anti-white bias amongst the general public. Whites have been made to feel guilty and ashamed of their own ancestors, history and achievements, while inconvenient truths are kept from the masses through anti-white propaganda.

White privilege “gives leftists a sweeping, prepackaged explanation for white achievement,” Trun explained. “By chalking it all up to white privilege, they don’t have to acknowledge the influence of biology or the deficiencies of other cultures.”

The white privilege theme and other Marxist, anti-white propaganda have severely impacted the way whites view themselves and their ancestors, both historically and in contemporary times.

“White privilege propaganda serves to make whites feel bad about themselves,” said Trun. “A demoralized population is easier to manipulate and control.”

Dr. Kevin MacDonald, editor of The Occidental Quarterly and author of numerous scholarly studies and books dealing with racial issues from an evolutionary perspective, described the psychological mechanisms of white dispossession and displacement taking place in America and Western Europe today, largely as a result of effective anti-White propaganda and messaging.

“Not only are anti-white messages prestigious, they are also badges of moral rectitude,” MacDonald noted. “Displacement-level, non-white immigration has become a moral imperative. To dissent from such policies is to place oneself outside the moral universe of the contemporary West.”

Trun authored an article and video masterfully critiquing the WPC entitled “An Open Letter to a Person of Privilege,” directed at professor Abby L. Ferber, Ph.D., the director of the Matrix Center for the Advancement of Social Equity and Inclusion at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. Professor Ferber, a Jewish “social justice” activist, is the co-organizer of the WPC.



 

Trun’s article reads in part:

As a professional pontificator against privilege that is white, male and heterosexual, you certainly have a nose for privilege—of certain kinds. There is another kind of privilege as yet unnamed that I think you are especially qualified to help make more visible. . . .

Your White Privilege Conference inspired me to launch the logical—and morally necessary—offshoot to the White Privilege Conference. The particulars of your privileged background make you eminently qualified to be the keynote speaker. So I hope you’ll join me at that upcoming social justice activism extravaganza that will henceforth be known as the Jewish Privilege Conference.

Since Jews on a per capita basis hold more wealth, control more media outlets, lead more corporations and occupy more spots in legislative, judicial and central banking bodies than whites, Jews must be more privileged than whites. Face it, you wouldn’t be where you are today without your privilege. It’s time [you] own it and speak out against it—or you, too, will be perpetuating social injustice.

Given the inordinate amount of influence Jews and Jewish organizations in America have over the government, media, banking and financial industry, academia, Hollywood, and other prominent institutions, perhaps a Jewish Privilege Conference is appropriate in the near future.

Donate to us

John Friend is a writer who maintains a blog and hosts “The Realist Report.”




Good News, Bad News in Obama’s SOTU

By Mark Anderson

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address (SOTU) January 28 was a steady stream of domestic success stories and policy pledges that present the American people with a number of promising changes. Yet, along the way, the second-term president revealed, and at times ignored, some troubling details that need to be closely examined.




 
 
 

While Obama pledged to “end the permanent war footing” of the United States, he did so without addressing any details of recent reports that U.S. and associated North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces could remain in Afghanistan through 2024 to some degree. The president mentioned that a small U.S.-NATO contingent would stay in Afghanistan to train local forces, but he did not elaborate.

He did add that he wants “to avoid large-scale deployments that deplete our strength,” though such large-scale deployments backed by Obama over the last six years have indeed depleted the U.S. in terms of blood and treasure. Hopefully, this latest statement is a sign Obama has learned from America’s military blunders and is not simply exercising his rhetorical skills.

In the days leading up to the SOTU address, several legislators, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon, expressed concerns that the Iraqi city of Fallujah had fallen to terrorist forces—with some legislators pondering whether the U.S. would have to return to Iraq if Iraq’s own forces cannot ensure the nation’s security.

Donate to us

Still, the president announced other laudable goals, including:

  • “An independent state for Palestinians,” although he pledged his fealty to the state of Israel as well.
  • Economic reforms, including less taxation of small business and incentives to restore manufacturing in the U.S.—a sector of the economy he said is already showing signs of gradual recovery.
  • An intention to veto any new sanctions against Iran. And he added that engaging Iran at the bargaining table should be no problem, since the U.S. regularly held talks with a much tougher foe, the Soviet Union, during the Cold War.
  • A renewed call to close the U.S. Naval prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, although many observers have heard this pledge before without results. Obama called on Congress to lift restrictions, which prevent detainees from being transferred out of “Gitmo.”
  • “Prudent limits on the use of drones”—although his administration is accused of the egregious abuse of armed drones targeting numerous innocent civilians.

On the negative side, Obama said he intends to push a new immigration law, even if it means using an executive order to bypass Congress—a dangerous, unconstitutional plan that would legalize millions of illegal aliens hiding out in America.

After Obama’s speech, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned him against invoking too many executive orders, saying such a move would violate the Constitution’s checks and balances.




In the economic realm, one stunning revelation, amid items that could help lift the nation out of its economic doldrums, was Obama’s announced support for two pending trade pacts: One for the Asia-Pacific region, and the other for the U.S. and Europe. The first of the two trade deals is the widely distrusted Trans-Pacific Partnership—which many call the North American Free Trade Agreement on steroids. The other deal is a likely Bilderberg Group goal, which is also supported by NATO and other globalist outfits.

Critics say these trade deals will diminish the very manufacturing sector that Obama believes is in recovery mode.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving reporter.




Witness Deaths Plague Probe Into Attack in Benghazi

• Were 15 witnesses to attack on U.S. consulate murdered?

By Victor Thorn

Congressional investigators continue to dig into what was behind the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on a United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed. But despite unearthing some explosive findings, the researchers have missed one of the most shocking aspects of the incident, which was revealed in previous issues of AMERICAN FREE PRESS. The U.S. facility in Benghazi was central to an American program to collect weapons that had been used by rebels in the war against former Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi. These arms were then being shipped to terrorists and fighters in Syria, who are battling the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad.

One especially interesting item that a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee discovered was revealed during a hearing on January 15: Since the September 11 terrorist attack, 15 Libyan witnesses who have been cooperating with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigators have been murdered. The report lacked details on who was behind these killings and noted that it was unclear whether the killings were related to the probe.



 

The House Armed Services Committee also released its own report days earlier. Both panels arrived at definitive conclusions and issued searing condemnations of the White House.

General Carter Ham, then-head of the U.S. Africa Command, or AFRICOM, testified in June 2013 that almost immediately he informed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey that a terrorist attack was in full swing in Benghazi.

In addition to footage obtained from onsite CCTV cameras, Panetta and Dempsey then met with Barack Obama at the White House. All of these individuals knew that the carnage didn’t result from an anti-Muslim video. Still, by September 25, 2012—a full two weeks later—Obama continued his deceptive fantasy narrative during an appearance on “The View,” claiming that he wasn’t sure what happened.

These dual reports contained some explosive conclusions. The attacks were preventable. Four terrorist groups, including a former Guantanamo Bay prison camp detainee, orchestrated the onslaught. Hillary Clinton’s State Department received seven reports prior to September 11, 2012, warning of imminent dangers. The White House still refuses to provide witnesses and documents to investigators about the attacks. To this day not one person within the Obama administration has been held accountable.

As expected, neither report referenced the biggest bombshell of all—namely, that proof exists that seized Libyan weapons were being channeled from Benghazi to anti-Assad rebels in Syria.



 

To present a broader perspective on the matter of 15 potential witnesses being eliminated, this reporter interviewed three leading researchers. First, on January 16 this writer contacted Dean Garrison, editor of the online news site “D.C. Clothesline.”

“The reports are that these witnesses were killed, which tells me they were murdered,” Garrison stated. “You don’t have to look far to find a long list of convenient deaths related to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. My gut feeling is that some or all of these people were silenced so that they wouldn’t cooperate with the FBI.”

On January 17, Tim Brown, founder of the conservative-based website “Freedom Outpost,” shared a similar view. “We have to face a reality,” said Brown. “When we talk about corruption in D.C., people like Hillary Clinton are willing to [kill] people. Witnesses in Benghazi are dying. Those in charge of this cover-up are leaving a trail of bodies in their wake. Is this the kind of people we want leading us?”

The Washington Times columnist and radio talk show host Sara Marie Brenner offered this perspective: “In terms of the 15 dead witnesses, it appears that the Obama administration is getting rid of anyone who knew the full story in the weeks leading up to this attack in Benghazi.”

Brenner added: “With the president and his regime, if you speak out against them, you’re placed on a list. They can’t take a chance that the whole Benghazi affair will blow up in their faces. So now we have 15 dead Libyans. If you’re not in the Barack Obama camp, they’ll do whatever it takes to intimidate you.”

Victor Thorn

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.




Peruvians Looking to Dismantle Rothschild’s Media Monopoly

By Bill White

Following on the heels of Argentina’s efforts to break up Grupo Clarin, the country’s major Jewish-owned media conglomerate, Peruvian President Ollanta Humala has begun work on the breakup of Grupo El Comercio, a newspaper publisher associated with The Wall Street Journal and the international Rothschild banking cartel.

“It is an embarrassment that we have a group that practically owns all of the media,” Humala said in a televised interview. “It’s dangerous.”

Last year Grupo El Comercio purchased Empresa Periodistica Nacional SA or Espensa, gaining control of Peru’s five largest newspapers and 70% of the Peruvian newspaper market, up from 50% beforehand.

In the United States, six companies—GE, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner and CBS—own 90% of all media and newspapers that have survived two decades of circulation declines are owned by a handful of mega-publishers from The New York Times to Berkshire Hathaway and Amazon.com. This consolidation, and the collaborative effort of the almost exclusively Jewish or Zionist owners of these companies, maintains a relative uniformity of news and media opinion in America.




 
 

Grupo El Comercio is affiliated with Newscorp, publishers of The Wall Street Journal, a Rothschild-financed newspaper controlled by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

The acquisition has left Peru with one media company, Grupo La Republica Publicaciones, SA, owning 18% of the remaining media, as these two companies between them own 87% of all Peruvian news. La Republica has sued to break up Grupo El Comercio, prompting Humala’s remarks.

The question of media ownership is vital to the independence of a nation. In the U.S., Zionist power has been largely built on media influence, which allowed Communism and world Zionism to fundamentally change American culture over the past century. Nations like Russia have struggled with the issue of nationalizing the media, and several South American countries, faced with subversion from internationalist interests who wish to exploit their people, have made similar moves.

Argentina, which has been targeted by globalists for the successful restructuring of its former International Monetary Fund debts and its independent currency policy, has had to wrestle with the globalist press. And now Peru, which is about to try its former president Alberto Fujimori for bribing media moguls into printing false news, is facing the same danger, which one Peruvian commentator called a “potentially very large threat to democracy.”

Donate to us

Bill White is a freelance journalist and publisher based in Virginia. He has also written articles for THE BARNES REVIEW (TBR) magazine.




AFP PODCAST: Can Water Cure Anything?

AFP PODCAST

Podcast Play Button

Can water cure anything?

John Ellis, of John Ellis Water, developed a process that he claims can rid water of all the harmful chemicals and viruses that are now, unfortunately, a part of America’s water supply. An engineer by trade, John almost stumbled upon this discovery decades ago, and has been bringing purified water to not just individuals, but multinational corporations and municipalities.

Dave Gahary sat down with John, who explains what his product is all about, in this informative interview (19:40).




 
 
 

AFP Newpaper Banner

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s ‘Underground Interview’ series.

Be sure to check out all of AFP’s free podcasts. You’ll find them on the HOME PAGE, ARCHIVES & PODCAST section.




AUDIO INTERVIEW & ARTICLE: Gunowner’s Harassment Sparks Outrage

AFP AUDIO INTERVIEW

Podcast Play Button

On December 30, 2013, at approximately 9:45 in the morning, John Filippidis, a 51-year-old from the Tampa Bay area, was returning home with his wife and three teenage children from a wedding and visits with loved ones in New York and New Jersey. He had just exited the Fort McHenry Tunnel, which carries traffic underneath the Baltimore Harbor. About 15 minutes later he was pulled over by a cop intent on ruining their holiday spirit, who demanded he produce the gun that was at home in his safe in Florida. How the officer knew he had a gun is the $64,000 question.

John was humiliated and harassed in front of his family for nearly 90 minutes, forced to stand in freezing weather on the median of I-95, while his accuser, who called him a liar, went through the entire vehicle, Christmas presents and all, only to find nothing.

Dave Gahary sat down with Mr. Filippidis, who recounted the entire incident, in this disturbing interview (15:03).




 
 
 

Gunowner’s Harassment Sparks Outrage

• Maryland cops use dirty tricks to harass Florida concealed carry license holder

By Dave Gahary

The holiday season is supposed to be a time of good will toward men, but some cops in Maryland seem to have never heard about that. A disturbing case out of the “Old Line State” illustrates how far the United States has gone down the path of a true police state and the long-term damage it is inflicting on innocent, law-abiding, hard-working Americans.

On December 30, 2013, at approximately 9:45 in the morning, John Filippidis, a 51-year-old from the Tampa Bay area, was returning home with his wife and three teenage children from a wedding and visits with loved ones in New York and New Jersey. He had just exited the Fort McHenry Tunnel, which carries traffic underneath the Baltimore Harbor, operated by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA). About 15 minutes later he was pulled over by an MdTA cop intent on ruining their holiday spirit.

Mr. Filippidis, who own a construction business with 22 employees, agreed to an exclusive interview with American Free Press to elaborate upon his experience.

“I’ve never been in trouble in my life, never been arrested, never went bankrupt,” he said. “I’m a good citizen, I pay all my taxes, teach my family, my children, to do the right thing. I have a great name here in the Tampa Bay area.”

AFP asked Mr. Filippidis to explain how the matter unfolded.

“We were traveling on I-95 coming through the Baltimore tunnel,” he began, “and approximately five minutes after, I realized there was an undercover cop in front of me. He slowed down and then let me go around him and then he came behind me and started following me for about approximately 10 minutes” and stopped me.

Around 10 minutes after Mr. Filippidis handed his license over, the MdTA cop returned and said, “‘Please step out of the car,’” and walked Mr. Filippidis to the back of his SUV. He remembered it was cold, around 20 degrees.

“Then he said to me, ‘Put your thumbs behind your back and spread your legs,’ and he searched me.”

When Mr. Filippidis asked, “‘What’s the problem officer?’ he replied, ‘You have a gun.’ I said, ‘Yes I do but I don’t have it with me, it’s at my house in my safe, because I know the laws and I know I’m not supposed to carry throughout the states.’”

The 20-something white officer ordered Mr. Filippidis, ‘You stand right here and don’t move.’

“I said, ‘Yes sir,’” and the MdTA cop went back to the SUV and started talking to his wife and children, asking her, “‘Where is your husband’s gun?’” He did the same to Mr. Filippidis’s son, and they both answered that “‘he left it home.’”

“He comes back to me and said, ‘You’re lying to me.’ And I said, ‘Officer, what do you mean?’ He said, ‘Your family’s telling me you have the gun with you,’ and I said, ‘Officer, no I do not have the gun and I don’t believe that my kids or my wife are telling you I have the gun with me. I am not lying, I know laws, I took my classes, and I know for a fact my gun is inside my safe.’”




After returning to the SUV to interrogate Mr. Filippidis’s family some more and forcing his wife to search the glove box and the middle console, most likely illegally, the MdTA cop returned to Mr. Filippidis and said, “‘You’re lying to me. The gun is in the car. Your family’s telling me the gun is in the car. Just tell me where it is now.’”

“‘Officer, I do not have the gun,” he repeated. “The gun is at home in my safe. And again, I know by law I’m not allowed to travel in certain states with it and I left it home.’”

Next, the cop “tells my wife and my children to get out of the car, right on the median of I-95, and takes my wife and brings her in the front of his vehicle and searches her. He searched my son and put my two girls in the police car.”

Around 25 minutes after they were first pulled over, three Maryland state troopers joined in the stop.

“They pull up and the take my two daughters and the officer says to me, ‘We’re gonna search your car.’ I said, ‘Officer, isn’t it my right that you need a warrant to search my car?’ He said, ‘No, I do not need a search warrant in the state of Maryland.’ So I said, ‘Officer, you do your job. I’m not giving you permission, but go ahead and do your job. If this is what your job is, then you do it.’”

The cops were sure to look after their own safety during their illegal search.

“They go inside my vehicle and move it closer towards the median and took all my suitcases and Christmas gifts out,” he said.

Incredibly, the MdTA cop returned from the search to tell Mr. Filippidis, “‘We found some marijuana seeds.’” Mr. Filippidis replied, “‘I doubt that you did.’”

One of the state troopers began interrogating Mr. Filippidis after the MdTA cop went back to the search.

“‘What do you do for a living and how do you make your money?” he asked, and again, Mr. Filippidis repeated what he said earlier, although it was in his rights not to.

“It was 20 degrees with all the tractor-trailers going by and wind blowing. It was very bad out there, very, very cold.

Mr. Filippidis’s asked the officer to let his kids go in the car and for his jacket.

“He wouldn’t let me get my jacket, but I wasn’t concerned about myself, I was more concerned about my family,” Mr. Filippidis said.

At one point, while freezing on the median, Mr. Filippidis was craving a smoke.

“I asked politely, ‘May I have a cigarette,’ and they turned around and said to me, ‘We don’t smoke so you can’t disrespect us.’ So I said, ‘OK, I apologize for asking.’”

Finally, after searching the entire contents of the SUV, “even the dirty laundry,” they told Mr. Filippidis’s family, ‘We’re sorry that we put you through all this. We will be putting your bags back together; we did not find anything.’”

Five or 10 minutes later, after a total time of “an hour and 20 minutes to an hour-and-a-half,” the MdTA cop called Mr. Filippidis to him and gave him a warning ticket for doing 72 miles an hour.

Reflecting on the experience, Mr. Filippidis said, “We were devastated. We never expected anything like this to ever happen. It was just like a nightmare, a nightmare that happened to me and my family. He determined to humiliate me in front of my family. He determined he wanted to find something and put me in jail. It felt like it was a very bad dream and is it was very devastating; believe me when I tell you.”

AFP asked how it is that the MdTA cop would suspect he was a gun owner.

“I really don’t know,” he said. “The captain said to me that he’d seen that I had a concealed weapon license in my wallet, but I don’t know how he could have ever seen [it].”

“I asked a few people here in Florida, with the law,” he continued, and they said “they can go on the Internet and see who has a concealed weapon.”

AFP asked Mr. Filippidis if he thought the MdTA cop may have actually accessed the Internet and found out about his concealed carry permit.

“That’s my theory,” he said, “because it took him approximately 10 minutes to pull me over and another 10 minutes to approach my vehicle.”

Mr. Filippidis is thinking about taking any legal action.

“I just want to make sure that no other family has to go through this, ever,” he said. “I think this officer should be disciplined and I think maybe they should send him to training school to not be able to do what he did to me and my family. He devastated us. He treated us like we were worse than animals.”

Donate to us

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s ‘Underground Interview’ series.

Be sure to check out all of AFP’s free audio interviews. You’ll find them on the HOME PAGE, ARCHIVES & AUDIO section.




Date with a Debate: Piper vs. Fetzer and Friend

On Monday, January 27, 2014, at 8 p.m. ET, Dave Gahary moderates the debate many of us have been waiting for.

For two hours, Mike Piper takes on Jim Fetzer and John Friend, who tackle the controversy surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School event, which will address most or all of the points raised in the article “Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax,” plus additional information which may cause you to reassess your position on whether what happened on December 14, 2012 was real or staged.

Jim has published an article on his debate with Keith Johnson and Mike has broadcast his thoughts about Jim, John and Sandy Hook.




 
 
 

Since John will be joining us approximately 30 minutes after the start of the show, we will begin by giving Jim a chance to respond to Mike’s broadcast and Mike to respond to Jim’s article, although neither is required to do so.

When John arrives, he will be allowed a 10 minute opening statement.

The debate will follow this format:

The moderator will ask questions to each participant where they will have no more than five minutes to present their argument and evidence. If less than the allotted time is used, it will be set aside for a less structured discussion towards the end. At the end of the debate, each participant will have no more than five minutes for their closing statement. Personal or unnecessary attacks will be met with the mute button.

A tamper-proof poll will be activated halfway through the debate allowing for only one vote per IP address. Obviously, it would make sense to cast your vote only after you are completely convinced. Don’t simply vote for one participant because you dislike the other; listen to their arguments. Please treat the vote as if you yourself were running for some sort of public office.

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.

James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.




McKnight Professor Emeritus at U of M Duluth, he has conducted research into the JFK assassination, 9/11, and Sen. Wellstone’s death.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth founder, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Jim is a contributor and editor at Veterans Today and hosts a radio show, “The Real Deal,” M/W/F

John Friend is a writer who maintains a blog and hosts “The Realist Report.”

ATTENTION READERS:

It was uncovered today, 2/4/14, that the polling software used for the debates was entirely unreliable and manipulable and has been removed. We are in the process of deciding how to best serve listeners who wish to vote.

ARCHIVES




Pro-White Rallies Organized Across Globe for March

 Activists looking to make March “White History Month”

By John Friend

Kyle Hunt is a man on a mission.

Mr. Hunt is one of the leading organizers of the White Man March, scheduled for March 15, 2014, and is also the host of “Blitzkrieg Broadcast” on the Renegade Broadcasting network.

The White Man March “will involve coordinated pro-white activity around the world,” Hunt explained to this reporter. “The purpose is to spread information through activism, but also to make a statement that white people are united in their love for their race and in their opposition to its destruction. One of the major goals of the White Man March is to demonstrate that pro-white people are able to form a united front and participate in large-scale action simultaneously, which will send a powerful message to our supporters, our enemies and those of our race who are still on the fence.”

The White Man March aims to set a precedent that other pro-white organizations and activists can follow in the future, Hunt stated.

“We are encouraging people to start networking together now to coordinate local events or to join up with larger regional events,” Hunt explained. “If there are only a few people in a location, they can hang up a banner, hand out fliers and strike up conversations.”

Hunt and other organizers of the White Man March hope that activists participating in the day’s events will film or photograph their activities in order to spread the message on social media, blogs, and YouTube.




 
 
 

When asked what main political and cultural statements the White Man March aims to make, Hunt elaborated:

“We are planning to show that white people are organized and impassioned, that we know what the anti-white agenda is all about, and that we are dedicated to waking up as many of our folk as possible. We will make it clear that we will not sit idly by as whites are discriminated against, mocked, displaced and violently attacked, all of which amount to white genocide, according to the United Nations’ own definition of genocide. This is why one of our big messages, which will be displayed on many large banners, is ‘Diversity Equals White Genocide.’ These banners will spread the message to the public at large in the most effective way possible. This ‘diversity’ agenda is being directed at white countries (and only at white countries) with various programs to ensure that there are less white people at schools and in the work force, which is unfair and discriminatory, taking away money and opportunities from the indigenous white people. ‘Diversity’ is a codeword for white genocide.”

“We will also be showing that the old stereotypes about pro-white activists are false,” he said. “The media would like people to believe that pro-whites are all Klansmen, neo-Nazis, skinheads and the like, which discourages many white people from becoming advocates of their own interests. We will be showing that many pro-whites are well-educated, attractive and respectable people who are concerned about the future they and their families are facing.”

Many Americans, due to indoctrination and propaganda, assume that white interests are well represented and championed in American society, and accept the “white privilege” meme that has emanated from leftist circles and become mainstream in recent years.

“Whites are so ‘privileged’ and ‘well represented’ in our society that we aren’t even able to organize as white people, advocate for our interests, and have pride in ourselves,” Hunt explained. “If a group of white people does stand up for its race, they are automatically called racists, bigots, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, haters, and a slew of other pejoratives intended to discredit them.”




Hunt noted the utter hypocrisy and double standards in racial politics in America today.

“All of the other races, except white people, are able to have pride in their heritage and form groups exclusive to their people,” he said. “Why can’t we?”

“We are struggling against the deliberate extermination of our race by an alien hostile elite that has hijacked almost all of our institutions,” concluded Hunt. “This criminal cabal is using everything at their disposal, including ‘third world’ immigrants and other non-whites, to eradicate white people from the face of the Earth. We are faced with a daunting task, but we must prevail, so as to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Donate to us

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




Crime Stats Alarm Black Leaders

Shocking new study on youth arrests lays bare facts about crime and race in America

By Victor Thorn

The implications are shocking: Nearly 50% of all black males and 38% of white men will be arrested by the age of 23. These statistics, compiled by four college professors between the years 1997-2008, were published in the January 6 edition of the journal Crime & Delinquency.

The biggest question one takes away from this study is what types of crimes are these young adults committing? Not surprisingly, there exists a great deal of variance depending on the perpetrator’s race.

A 2012 study by the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention revealed that in 2010 black youths committed six times more murders, three times more rapes, 10 times more robberies and three times more assaults than did their white counterparts.

Similar statistics were released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the “Uniform Crime Reports.” They determined, “In the year 2008, black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58% for homicide and 67% for robbery.” By contrast, the only categories where white youths surpassed blacks were in liquor law violations and driving under the influence.




 
 

Even black civil rights advocates such as Van Jones, President Barack Obama’s former green jobs czar, confirmed these findings. In his October 5, 2005 article, “Are Blacks a Criminal Race?” Jones wrote, “African American youth represent 32% of all weapons arrests [and] were arrested for aggravated assault at a rate nearly three times that of whites.”

To better comprehend this trend, on January 10 AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke with veteran journalist and author Alan Caruba. When questioned about the proliferation of black crime, Caruba explained, “The black community is afflicted with all kinds of problems based on a long history of failing to integrate fully into the overall community.”

Pointing to current events, Caruba explained: “The knockout game is a good example of what’s wrong today. It goes straight to the heart of how [blacks] are raised. It’s a disturbing trend that all of us need to pay more attention to.”

The so-called “knockout game” was made popular largely by gangs of teenage blacks who select a random person and try to knock them unconscious with one punch to the head or face.

Although few publications other than AFP have the courage to buck political correctness and address the actualities of this social cancer in a forthright manner, in a 2011 speech Philadelphia’s black Mayor Michael Nutter offered the following admonishment to black youths:

“You have damaged your own race,” he said. “Take those damned hoodies down. Pull your pants up and buy a belt because no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.”

Summarizing this entire matter was former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy who, on September 30, 2005 declared:

“Some identifiable groups . . . commit crime at a rate that is higher than the national rate. Blacks are such a group. That is simply a fact.”

Victor Thorn

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.



 

Race, Poverty Play Greater Role in Crime Than Guns

• Gun-control advocates crowing about recent gun violence report, but facts belie wishful thinking

By Pete Papaherakles

The liberal mainstream media has been making quite a commotion over a recently released study that purports to show states with lax gun laws suffer the worst violence in the United States. In reality, much to their dismay, what the study has really exposed is something regular readers of AMERICAN FREE PRESS already know: Race and poverty play more of a factor in areas plagued by violence than do gun laws alone.

The best example of this is Tennessee, which in 2012 had the dubious distinction of ranking number one in the country for incidences of violent crime, namely murder, assault and rape.

According to the FBI statistics for that year, most of the United States saw a nearly 1% drop in crime rates. In Tennessee, however, the violent crime rate went up by 6.8%. More specifically, the Volunteer State was first in aggravated assaults, with an estimated 479.6 for every 100,000 residents for a total of 41,550 violent crimes in 2012.

On January 7, AFP interviewed longtime Tennessee resident and attorney Keith Alexander for insight into this matter.

Alexander is a co-host of the popular weekly radio program “Political Cesspool,” carried by several AM radio stations across the country as well as on Internet radio.

“The problem in Tennessee is mostly in Shelby County,” said Alexander. “Over 50% of the violent crimes happen in Shelby County, and Memphis makes up about three-quarters of the population in Shelby County.”

He added that about 65% of the population in Memphis is now black.

“Blacks flock to where whites go like fleas on a dog,” he said. “All these Mississippi Delta cities are in decay as blacks keep moving in to milk whites for money. They want affirmative action programs, government jobs, section 8 housing, and more government money for their children.”

As an attorney, Alexander understands the crime statistics for his state.

“Domestic violence is rampant among black couples,” he said. “However, the courts have a vested interest in getting more such cases prosecuted because they receive more government funds this way. Prosecutors will not allow women to drop domestic violence charges, or the men to cop a plea to a lesser charge. Instead, they urge men to plead guilty with the promise that they will not be incarcerated. But the assault still goes on their record.”

Tennessee is not alone in this. The other states in the top 10 most violent list all demonstrate similar racial and economic disparities. They include by order of their ranking: Nevada, Alaska, New Mexico, South Carolina, Delaware, Louisiana, Florida, Maryland and Oklahoma. More importantly, it is misleading to rate crime by state when it is cities that make all the difference.

Maryland stands out among the other violent states on the list given its stringent gun-control laws. Overall, the Old Line State has the highest median income in the nation, the third-lowest poverty rate and one of the highest proportions of adults with a college degree. But in Maryland’s case, one city, Baltimore, is responsible for giving that state a bad name.

There are already strict gun-control laws in Baltimore, but that has not stopped that city from becoming the fifth most dangerous in the nation, dragging the entire state down when it comes to violent crime statistics. Baltimore also has the highest poverty rate in the state and, like Memphis, a high concentration—65%—of blacks.

The 2005 report “The Color of Crime” by the New Century Foundation lays it out: “Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. . . . Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”

Donate to us

Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP and is also AFP’s outreach director. Pete is interested in getting AFP writers and editors on the podium at patriotic events. Call him at 202-544-5977 if you know of an event you think AFP should attend.




Holder Uses the Race Card for Public Schools

Attorney General issues new race-based standards for dealing with troublemakers in schools

By Keith Johnson

As if the learning environment in the United States public school system weren’t already bad enough, the Obama administration has now made things much worse with new race-biased federal guidelines that will shield black and Latino students from disciplinary action for their disruptive and often violent behavior.

During a January 8 press conference, Attorney General Eric Holder blamed “zero-tolerance” classroom policies for creating a “school-to-prison pipeline,” where punishments are sometimes meted out via the criminal justice system rather than being handled internally.




 
 
 

“Ordinary troublemaking can sometimes provoke responses that are overly severe, including out of school suspensions, expulsions and even referral to law enforcement and then you end up with kids that end up in police precincts instead of the principal’s office,” Holder said.

Although he does raise a legitimate concern, Holder’s racially divisive politics negate any possibility that his efforts will lead to meaningful reform. Much like hate crime legislation, the new federal guidelines on school discipline pave the way for selective enforcement by assigning protected status to non-white groups. In a letter to school districts, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education attempt to justify these discriminatory mandates by citing a few questionable research studies that suggest that black students are unfairly targeted for disciplinary action by racist teachers and school administrators.

“For example, in our investigations, we have found cases where African-American students were disciplined more harshly and more frequently because of their race than similarly situated white students,” the letter said. “In short, racial discrimination in school discipline is a real problem.”

Under the new guidelines, school administrators will now be compelled to think twice before taking punitive action against non-white students. In addition to proving that their disciplinary policies “are necessary to meet an important educational goal,” educators must also ensure that any resulting punishments do not have an “adverse impact on students of a particular race as compared with students of other races.”

It should come as no surprise that the fed’s recent move has been warmly embraced by many so-called black leaders, including National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Interim President and CEO Lorraine C. Miller, who applauded the new dictates as a “giant step in improving the disciplinary policies that impede the educational growth and development of students across the country, particularly in communities of color.”

Donate to us

There are, however, a few black leaders who aren’t nearly as enthused. Among them is Joe Hicks, former executive director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission and current board member of The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives.

During a recent interview with this AMERICAN FREE PRESS reporter, Mr. Hicks discussed the new federal guidelines and explained why he is vehemently opposed to them.




“There’s no doubt that far more black and Latino kids are being expelled, suspended and disciplined in our public schools,” Hicks said. “But the question that is never asked by Holder, Obama or any of the leftist liberal activists championing this cause is why?”

Hicks contends the answer may lie in the fact that many black youths have been raised in a “tangled culture of dysfunction” that has plagued urban centers since the late 1960s.

“I’ve lived in the inner city here in Los Angeles, so I know this problem very well,” he said. “Kids are coming out of these dysfunctional environments without a father in the home to mete out discipline. In many cases, they’re raised by mothers who work long hours and are unable to keep track of their children’s activities. So when they walk into these schools, they bring their attitudes and street culture with them.”

All of these contributing factors, Hicks said, produce a child that is “angry, hostile” and more likely to “act out” against those in positions of authority.

When asked if there’s any substance to the claim that black students are being unfairly disciplined because of their race, Hicks replied: “In many of the [school] districts that have been sued for their disciplinary policies, you’ll find—in many cases—black administrators and a sizeable number of black teachers. So the notion that we have this cabal of white racist principals, teachers and administrators that are picking on black kids because of their race is absurd on its face.”

Hicks continued: “There have always been bad kids who come from bad circumstances and bad parents. The point is, schools have always dealt with it. But now, we’re in this touchy-feely world where we have the attorney general of the United States involving himself in how our local schools choose to discipline kids. It’s one of the more outrageous things I’ve ever seen, and parents should be up in arms about it.”

Keith Johnson in an investigative journalist and creator of the Revolt of the Plebs.




Judge Slaps Down an SPLC Hit Man

Judge orders leftist group to pay $50K

By Pete Papaherakles

For years, organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League have gotten away with harassing, smearing, suing, threatening and generally irritating prominent patriotic and free speech groups and individuals in the United States. That all changed in January, though, when an American Indian sued one of these groups and won after the conference he was scheduled to speak at was forced to shut down due to threats.

The lawsuit stemmed from an incident in February 2010, when One People’s Project (OPP), founded by Daryle Lamont Jenkins in 2000, targeted a conference set up by the New Century Foundation in North Carolina. After receiving considerable pressure as well as threats, the hotel was forced to cancel because so-called “white racists” and “bigots” were meeting there.




 
 
 

David Yeagley was one of the scheduled speakers. Although Yeagley is a Comanche Indian, he has very strong nationalist convictions and is a fierce advocate for the right of whites to defend their own interests. A true American patriot with multiple master’s degrees and a long list of achievements, he has been called the “American Indian Leonardo DaVinci.” Yeagley took it upon himself to file a lawsuit against  OPP and finally succeeded in getting justice in an Oklahoma court—amounting to a $50,000 judgment against OPP.

Over the years, OPP has targeted groups such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS, the Council of Conservative Citizens and even prominent revisionists like historian David Irving. OPP is supported by Morris Dees’s SPLC, which has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars by instigating racial tensions and capitalizing on the exploitation of alleged victims of racism.

Jenkins, an obviously self-indulgent man with secretive funding, directs small groups of young, unemployed leftists with too much time on their hands. He operates OPP’s website, which publishes phone numbers, home addresses and workplace addresses of individuals  OPP has targeted and slandered as being far right or racist.




This writer has also been a victim of OPP’s harassment. In 2009 Canadian free speech activist Paul Fromm spoke to a small gathering at my home. Members of OPP placed fliers throughout the neighborhood with my name, address and pictures of hooded Klansmen, misinforming them that a Klan meeting was taking place at my house.

The local media was even contacted, and the event made the evening news as a half-dozen disheveled demonstrators with signs protesting racism marched in front of my house.

Donate to us

Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP and is also AFP’s outreach director. Pete is interested in getting AFP writers and editors on the podium at patriotic events. Call him at 202-544-5977 if you know of an event you think AFP should attend.




Butcher of Beirut Meets Maker

True tale of genocidal terrorist Ariel Sharon needs telling

By Ronald L. Ray

Ariel “the Bulldozer” Sharon, former prime minister and alleged “king” of Israel, is dead at age 85. First, it was Nelson Mandela, a mass murderer who rose to destroy a once-great country. Then it was Edgar Bronfman, another “king of the Jews,” who ruled the far-flung dominions his mafioso father built. Now Sharon has been judged, and his body has become food for worms. While lapdog media and pansy politicians laud the ostensible “lion of Judah,” AMERICAN FREE PRESS again presents the truth about this architect of the anti-Arab genocide in Zionist-occupied Palestine.

Acclaimed by his eulogists as a “peacemaker,” Sharon was a militant, who methodically sought to expand “Eretz Israel” (“Greater Israel”) ever further into the world, recognizing no borders but the “last tree planted” by a Jew. Even so, the thoughtful among those Jews, including many veterans of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), have admitted that Sharon was instead the butcher of babies and mothers.

He was one of the “founding generation” of terrorists who imposed Israel on the backs of native Palestinians. The list of his war crimes goes back at least to 1953, when a young Sharon led a murderous raid on the village of Qibya. Sixty-nine innocent Palestinians were killed—two-thirds of whom were women and children—and 50 homes destroyed. UN observers reported “bullet-riddled bodies near the doorways,” as evidence that the occupants were kept in their houses while the walls were brought down on them.




 
 
 

Donate to us

In the 1956 Sinai campaign, Sharon’s paratroopers cold-bloodedly executed 49 unarmed Egyptian prisoners of war. Israeli censors suppressed the story for decades, according to the Los Angeles Times in 1995. And Sharon established the infamous “Unit 101” retribution squads.

Between 700 (according to the Israelis) and 3,500 Palestinians were massacred in the Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila on September 18, 1982. This brutal bloodbath was carried out by a Lebanese, purportedly Christian, Phalangist militia. But it was Sharon who expressly approved letting them into the camps, and an Israeli inquiry concluded that he bore “personal responsibility” for the murders.

Then there are the 240 or more defenseless Palestinians, including even the disabled, who were killed by the IDF in the 2002 “Operation Defensive Shield,” a prototype of Benjamin Netanyahu’s even deadlier “Operation Cast Lead” and the Israeli scorched-earth “Dahiya” military doctrine.

Infamous for reportedly stating, “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it,” Sharon went so far in 2001 as to declare all Jews above the law. “Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the state of Israel on trial,” he pontificated.




Sharon escaped retribution in this life, but the strict and just Judge of us all may well have decided differently.

AFP Newpaper Banner

Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.




AUDIO INTERVIEW & ARTICLE: Christian Cross Assault Continues

AFP AUDIO INTERVIEW

Podcast Play Button

The relentless drive by organized Jewish and atheist groups and individuals to vanquish all symbols of Christianity that hold extremely important significance to this country’s history and to the millions of Americans who call themselves Christians may have reached a fevered pitch, as a 27-foot high cross that adorns a war memorial is now in their sights, with the nearly 25-year litigation battle coming close to an end.

Dave Gahary sat down with Bruce Bailey, the president and chief executive officer of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to gain further insight into this landmark case, in this revealing interview (20:27).




 
 
Assault on Christian Cross Continues

• Jewish, atheist groups have worked for 25 years to have memorial cross for vets ripped down

• Whiners from Jewish war veterans group say Christian cross on public property is offensive

By Dave Gahary

The relentless drive by organized Jewish and atheist groups and individuals to vanquish all symbols of Christianity that hold extremely important significance to this country’s history and to the millions of Americans who call themselves Christians may have reached a fevered pitch, as a 27-foot high cross that adorns a war memorial is now in their sights, with the nearly 25-year litigation battle coming close to an end.

The Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America (JWV) has teamed up with the Jewish-dominated American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Anti-Defamation League to attack the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in La Jolla, California, although the memorial is home to no less than 18 Stars of David. It seems that the prominence of the Latin cross is what has these Jews offended.

On December 12, U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ordered the cross removed within 90 days, but ‘stayed’ the order until all possible appeals have been exhausted. A stay is a ruling by the court that halts further litigation in a trial.

The openly-Zionist and rapidly-shrinking JWV is no ordinary veterans’ organization, like the American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars, which lobby on behalf of active duty and veteran service members for better health care and benefits, regardless of their religion.

The JWV is a member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and advocates for religious freedom and separation of church and state in the U.S. military. They also sponsor a “Holocaust” observance on military installations and administer a reward fund for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those accused of “anti-Semitism.” Indicative of the minute numbers of Jews who serve in the armed forces, the JWV also present annually little more than two dozen engraved ‘Kiddush cups’ to Jewish graduates of the several U.S. military academies.

Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial was founded in 1952 by American Legion Post #275, and in 1954 the cross was built on top of Mount Soledad specifically to honor returning Korean War veterans. In May of 1989, Phillip Paulson, an atheist and a veteran, initiated litigation to remove the cross, as it was on property owned by the city of San Diego. Although Paulson has since passed on, several separate plaintiffs were substituted in his place to continue the assault.

To honor the wishes of the locals who were happy with the memorial, the city put the land up for bid, with the highest bidder, the Mount Soledad Memorial Association (MSMA), paying $106,000. Further litigation made its way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, who ruled that the sale itself was unconstitutional, until in 2006, Representative Duncan L. Hunter (R-Calif.) attached the land to a budget bill, applying eminent domain, and took it under ownership of the federal government, declaring the cross to be a national war memorial.

The Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial was now under the control of the U.S. Navy, but a memo of understanding allowed for the MSMA to maintain the Memorial, without federal funding. Proceeds are raised from the sale of plaques on the walls that were built in 2001, which now contain 3,400 monuments for veterans living and deceased, from the Revolutionary War to the current conflicts in the Middle East. The plaques sell for between $950 and $1,800. Presidents Eisenhower, Ford and Reagan all have plaques there.




To gain further insight into this landmark case, American Free Press conducted an exclusive interview with Bruce Bailey, the president and chief executive officer of the MSMA, who is a Vietnam era veteran who served as a judge advocate for 30 years in the Air Force, 20 of them in the Pentagon. A judge advocate serves as a legal advisor to the command they are attached to.

“The first cross on Mount Soledad was put up in 1913,” he began. “This is a nondenominational memorial. We see veterans as veterans. We don’t see them as Christians, of the Jewish faith, of Muslims, of any particular faith. Our position is simply that it is a Latin cross but it has more meaning than just being a symbol of Christianity. It is a symbol of honoring veterans.”

AFP asked how the case will likely unfold.

“We just appealed this case…to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals up in San Francisco [who has] already indicated that the ‘cross as it is presently situated,’ violates the Constitution. And so we anticipate that they will again rule that the cross…is in violation of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. And then, the case will be ripe to ask the Supreme Court to hear [it].”

The MSMA is represented by Liberty Institute and the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, both Texas-based, neither of which are charging a penny.

“They have spent quite a bit of money helping us through this lawsuit, and I just want say…we’re very indebted to these people and very appreciative of their hard work,” Mr. Bailey said.

“I can tell you that since this ruling has come down, we have gotten lots and lots of responses from people all across the country…saying they support what we’re doing, they believe in what we’re doing, and they believe the cross should remain as part of the Memorial.”

The memorial is the only one like it in the country because it honors veterans who are living and deceased.

“Approximately 70% of the plaques on the walls are for living veterans,” said Bailey.

“In the meantime we continue our mission [of] honoring veterans. It was originally put up as a war memorial and we realized years after that, that the people who served at any time, those people who have helped preserve the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans, that’s what we’re all about.”

There is federal legislation in the works to keep the cross standing. Representative Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), the son of Representative Duncan L. Hunter mentioned above,  introduced in the House of Representatives on January 3,  the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Preservation Act, which “orders the Secretary of Defense to cede all rights, title and interest in the memorial site to the association at no cost.”

Donate to us

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s ‘Underground Interview’ series.

Be sure to check out all of AFP’s free audio interviews. You’ll find them on the HOME PAGE, ARCHIVES & AUDIO section.




Date with a Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Keith Johnson

On Thursday, January 23, 2014, at 8 p.m. ET, Dave Gahary moderates a debate between Keith Johnson and Jim Fetzer, who tackle the controversy surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School event, which will address all of the points raised in the article “Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax,” plus some more which are sure to make you reassess your position on whether what happened on December 14, 2012 was real or staged.

Keith Johnson, an investigative journalist, radio talk show host and editor of “Revolt of the Plebs,” has for 17 years worked as a private investigator and polygraph examiner for several Fortune 500 companies and prominent law firms.

James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.




 
 
 

McKnight Professor Emeritus at U of M Duluth, he has conducted research into the JFK assassination, 9/11, and Sen. Wellstone’s death.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth founder, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

Jim is a contributor and editor at Veterans Today and hosts a radio show, “The Real Deal”, M/W/F

ATTENTION READERS:

It was uncovered today, 2/4/14, that the polling software used for the debates was entirely unreliable and manipulable and has been removed. We are in the process of deciding how to best serve listeners who wish to vote.

8_Sandy-Hook-Podcast-300x231

ARCHIVES