Oregon Standoff Turns Violent; Leading Spokesman Dead

By John Friend —

The standoff taking place in southeastern Oregon took a dramatic turn in the late afternoon hours on Tuesday, January 26.

According to local reports, Ammon Bundy, the leader of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and a number of other individuals close to him are now in federal custody after being stopped by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Oregon State Police on US Highway 395 roughly 20 miles north of Burns, Oregon.

Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, who AMERICAN FREE PRESS interviewed while at the Refuge, was reportedly killed by law enforcement officers. Ryan Bundy, Ammon’s older brother, was shot and wounded during the violent confrontation, and was subsequently taken into federal custody.

Also arrested were Joseph D. O’Shaughnessy, 45, of Cottonwood, Arizona, and Pete Santilli, 50, of Cincinnati, the combative Internet broadcaster known for his showboating and aggressive manner while recording and live streaming during the standoff. Both men face conspiracy charges of impeding federal officers.


Bundy and his entourage were reportedly traveling to a community meeting that was organized and scheduled by residents in the town of John Day, a small community just north of Burns. The Oregonian, one of the largest newspapers in the state, reported that several hundred locals gathered at the John Day Senior Center before being told Bundy and his supporters would not be speaking at the event.

At 4:25 pm PST, FBI officials and the Oregon State Police released a joint statement describing “an enforcement action to bring into custody a number of individuals associated with the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,” according to the press release. “During that arrest, there were shots fired.”

Finicum, who served as a spokesman and leader of the occupation, was a Mormon rancher with 11 children. He told NBC News on January 5 that he would rather be killed than arrested.

“There are things more important than your life, and freedom is one of them,” Finicum said.

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, who has supported the Bundys in the past, told local media outlets that Ammon Bundy called his wife after being detained by law enforcement authorities, informing her that Finicum was cooperating with law enforcement officials before being shot and killed. That allegation has not yet been confirmed.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

“My dad was such a good good man, through and through,” Arianna Finicum Brown, 26, one of Finicum’s 11 children, told The Oregonian. “He would never ever want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved.”

In an interview with The Oregonian on Monday, January 25, Finicum noted that “the tenor has changed” between his entourage and the federal authorities they were negotiating with. “They’re doing all the things that shows that they want to take some kinetic action against us,” Finicum told The Oregonian.

The violent confrontation between law enforcement authorities and the protesters came days after county and state officials in Oregon insisted the federal government intervene, forcefully if necessary, to end the occupation.

Ammon and Ryan Bundy, along with at least five other individuals associated with the occupation, are currently in federal custody. They are facing “a federal felony charge of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation, or threats, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 372,” according to the official statement.


Tensions had been rising in southeastern Oregon as the standoff at the Refuge in Harney County entered its fourth week. On January 20, Oregon governor Katherine “Kate” Brown submitted a letter to the U.S. Justice Department and FBI Director James Comey urging federal officials to take “swift” action against the occupiers.

“While it is easy to assume that an occupation in such a remote location does not threaten public safety and does not harm any victims, that perception is far from accurate,” the governor stated in her letter. Governor Brown described the occupiers as “armed criminals who appear to be seeking occasions for confrontation,” an allegation Ammon Bundy, Finicum, and other leaders of the occupation strongly disagreed with.

The Oregon governor went on to insist that the federal government find a prompt resolution to the standoff, and end the occupation of the Refuge. “Efforts to negotiate have not been successful, and now it is unclear what steps, if any, federal authorities might take to bring this untenable situation to an end and restore normalcy to to this community.”

The Oregonian, Oregon’s leading newspaper, also published an editorial urging the occupiers to end their protest and leave town on the same day Governor Brown issued her letter to federal authorities.

On Monday, January 25, Harney County Judge Steven E. Grasty, joining Governor Brown in her call for swift action against the protesters occupying the Refuge, argued the time is now for federal authorities to bring an end to the occupation.

“They need to move, they need to make a decision,” Grasty recently stated. “Are they going to arrest these people? Are they going to blockade the facility?”

Federal authorities had emphasized their desire to take an extremely cautious approach to handling the standoff in an effort to avoid violence. Those participating in the occupation and protest also emphasized they were not instigating or enticing a violent confrontation with law enforcement authorities either. They insisted that they were simply interested in having their legitimate grievances addressed by the proper authorities.

As we know now, those desires did not play out.

At various community meetings in Harney County over the course of the past two weeks, local residents expressed their disapproval of the ongoing occupation and the outsiders behind it. Although numerous Harney County residents, including ranchers and private property owners, sympathize with the Hammonds and are critical of many of the federal government’s land management policies in the county, many locals are getting tired of the occupation and the disruption it is causing to their daily lives.

“You should just go home, and I hope somebody catches you on the way, and you go to jail where you deserve to be,” Isabelle Fleuraud, pointing at Ammon Bundy from across the bleachers, stated at a community meeting held on January 19 in Burns, the county seat.


Supporters of Harney County ranchers Dwight L. and Steven D. Hammond, who surrendered to federal authorities in early January, took over a number of federal buildings on the National Refuge on January 2 in protest of the re-sentencing of the Hammonds following a federal appeal of their original sentence.

The protesters and occupiers have maintained that the Hammonds, as well as other local ranchers and private property owners in Oregon and across the United States, have been harassed, mistreated, and intimidated by federal agencies maintaining vast amounts of land owned by the federal government. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to even own the land, protesters claim.

Ammon Bundy, the iconic leader of the occupation now in federal custody, and others submitted a detailed redress of grievance to local and state officials in Oregon in December, emphasizing the plight of the Hammonds and the unjust treatment they have received by the federal government. Thus far, the issues and concerns they have raised with officials have yet to be responded to and addressed.

Local and federal authorities have asserted that the demands issued by the occupiers, which include releasing the Hammonds from federal prison as well as ending federal ownership and management of grazing land and the massive Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, are not feasible and contrary to established law and legal precedents.

County officials, including Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward and Grasty, were entirely unwilling to even engage with Bundy and his entourage, at least when it came to addressing their concerns with federal management of vast amounts of land in Harney County. According to a spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the federal agency responsible for managing and maintaining land owned by the federal government, the BLM manages over 60% of the county.

Bundy and his supporters engaged in dialogue with representatives of the FBI late last week in an effort to resolve the ongoing standoff. However, on Friday, January 22, Bundy questioned the FBI’s legal authority to operate in Harney County. In a confrontation with Harney County sheriff’s officials, Bundy demanded to know whether or not Harney County officials granted the FBI authority to operate in the county. Harney County officials informed Bundy the FBI did in fact have permission to operate, and that local and state agencies were working closely with the federal government in their response to the standoff.

Donate to us

John Friend is a California-based writer who maintains a blog.

Israel’s Opportunistic Terror Strategy

• Zionist state working closely with al Qaeda affiliate to bring down Assad in Syria.

• Mossad hit squads have been active in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq for a decade.

By Richard Walker —

Contrary to Israel’s claim that it is not involved in the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, it has expanded the role of its special forces in the terror wars in both countries, supporting the terrorists of the al-Nusra Front, and working closely with Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq.

In a classic example of a double-edged strategy, Israel has taken advantage of widespread terror by generating even more chaos. It has upped its military support to the al-Nusra Front, a co-partner of the Islamic State (ISIS) and al Qaeda.

At the same time, Israel has devoted considerable resources to the Iraqi Kurds’ efforts to defeat ISIS and consolidate its hold over territory in Iraq and Syria. Israel expects the Kurds to emerge from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria strong enough to create an independent Kurdish state that will split both nations and provide Israel with an ally that has lately been secretly supplying over 75% of Israel’s oil needs.

The backing of the al-Nusra Front, for which there is considerable United Nations evidence, is an Israeli ploy to weaken the Syrian regime, as well as Hezbollah, which has been fighting al-Nusra on Syrian land close to the Golan Heights—land Israel illegally seized from Syria in 1967.

Evidence has emerged that a Mossad squad murdered Muhammad Suleiman, a senior Syrian general, in 2008 near Tartus, the Syrian island where Russia maintains a military base.

While there has been handwringing about that killing, which was a crime according to international law, it was just one example of Israel’s wider assassination policies, extending over decades in the Middle East.

The episode pales in significance to the growing presence of Mossad hit squads in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq over the past decade.


In the last two years, Israeli special forces units and military specialists from Israel’s army and air force have been operating in Iraq and Syria. Some have also been training Jordan’s special forces, and helping the country shape its air and undercover campaigns against ISIS. The Israelis have been running and planning operations out of a Jordanian airbase near the border with Syria. Israel has even sold drones to Jordan and has given it Cobra attack helicopters. Israel’s aim has been to establish a command-and-control role in respect of Jordan’s choice of targets in Iraq and Syria.

While Israel has been arming al-Nusra, and allowing its injured fighters to be treated in Israeli military hospitals, it has been careful not to have too many of its special forces on the ground in Syria, knowing the Russians are closely watching the Israeli military footprint in that country. Russia has made it clear to Israel it will not take kindly to Israeli forces assisting al-Nusra units to target Russian specialists operating with the Syrian military. The warning has not entirely deterred Israel from using al-Nusra fighters to gather intelligence on the Syrian regime’s war plans, however.

Israel’s main focus has been on helping the Kurds in Iraq.

Recently, the Iraqi government responded with anger when officials learned Israel was directing a clandestine oil “pipeline” with the Kurds. The Israelis were helping the Kurds move large supplies of Iraq’s oil out of Kurdistan to an Israeli terminal, using the services of a Greek company. Israel sold some of the oil on international markets, while the remainder provided up to 75% of Israel’s energy needs.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

When Israel’s role was exposed for hiding the oil sales from the government in Baghdad, it responded disingenuously that it had merely been helping the Kurds build a better economic base while fighting ISIS. One of the benefits of the secret oil transfer was that the Kurds were able to borrow $4 billion in 2014.

Israel is convinced an independent Kurdistan built on parts of Iraq and Syria will weaken Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, and Syria. It will also create an ally with a constant energy supply. While the Kurdish Peshmerga, with Israeli help, has made significant inroads against ISIS centers in Iraq, it has also consolidated its gains in Syria. The Kurdish dream is to unite the Kurdish populations in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.

That would be a political headache for Turkey since more than 18% of its population is Kurdish. Turkey is vehemently opposed to a large, oil-rich, independent Kurdish state on its borders, even if the state were to only comprise Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, and not the Turkish portion. To Turkey’s dismay, Washington, like Israel, favors the concept of an enlarged Kurdish entity.

In the past 12 months, Israel persuaded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is controlled from Washington, to move a large quantity of arms from Bulgaria, through Greece, to the Kurds in Iraq. That occurred after Turkey, a NATO member, refused to allow the arms to be routed through its territory.

Donate to us

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Land of the Greed; Home of the Slave

• Who can put America back on a path to greatness?

By Paul Craig Roberts —

One hundred years ago European civilization, as it had been known, was ending its life in the Great War, later renamed World War I. Millions of soldiers ordered by mindless generals into the hostile arms of barbed wire and machine gun fire had left the armies stalemated in trenches. A reasonable peace could have been reached, but President Woodrow Wilson kept the carnage going by sending fresh American soldiers to try to turn the tide against Germany in favor of the English and French.

The fresh American machine gun and barbed wire fodder weakened the German position, and an armistice was agreed. The Germans were promised no territorial losses and no reparations if they laid down their arms, which they did—only to be betrayed at Versailles. The injustice and stupidity of the Versailles Treaty produced the German hyperinflation, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the rise of Hitler.

Hitler’s demands that Germany be put back together from the pieces handed out to France, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, comprising 13% of Germany’s European territory and one-tenth of her population, and a repeat of French and British stupidity that had sired the Great War finished off the remnants of European civilization in World War II.


The United States benefitted greatly from this death. The economy of the United States was left untouched by both world wars, but economies elsewhere were destroyed. This left Washington and the New York banks the arbiters of the world economy. The U.S. dollar replaced British sterling as the world reserve currency and became the foundation of U.S. domination in the second half of the 20th century, a domination limited in its reach only by the Soviet Union.

The Soviet collapse in 1991 removed this constraint from Washington. The result was a burst of American arrogance and hubris that wiped away in over-reach the leadership power that had been handed to the United States. Since the Clinton regime, Washington’s wars have eroded American leadership and replaced stability in the Middle East and North Africa with chaos.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Washington moved in the wrong direction both in the economic and political arenas. In place of diplomacy, Washington used threats and coercion. “Do as you are told or we will bomb you into the Stone Age,” as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told President Musharraf of Pakistan.

Not content to bully weak countries, Washington threatens powerful countries such as Russia, China, and Iran with economic sanctions and military actions. Consequently, much of the non-Western world is abandoning the U.S. dollar as world currency, and a number of countries are organizing a payments system, World Bank, and IMF of their own. Some NATO members are rethinking their membership in an organization that Washington is herding into conflict with Russia.

China’s unexpectedly rapid rise to power owes much to the greed of American capitalism. Pushed by Wall Street and the lure of “performance bonuses,” U.S. corporate executives brought a halt to rising U.S. living standards by sending high productivity, high value-added jobs abroad where comparable work is paid less. With the jobs went the technology and business knowhow. American capability was given to China. Apple Computer, for example, has not only offshored the jobs but also outsourced its production. Apple does not own the Chinese factories that produce its products.

The savings in U.S. labor costs became corporate profits, executive remuneration, and shareholder capital gains. One consequence was the worsening of the U.S. income distribution and the concentration of income and wealth in few hands. A middle-class democracy was transformed into an oligarchy. As former President Jimmy Carter recently said, the U.S. is no longer a democracy; it is an oligarchy.

In exchange for short-term profits and in order to avoid Wall Street threats of takeovers, capitalists gave away the American economy. As manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs flowed out of America, real family incomes ceased to grow and declined. The U.S. labor force participation rate fell even as economic recovery was proclaimed. Job gains were limited to lowly paid domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses, and bartenders, and part-time jobs replaced fulltime jobs. Young people entering the work force find it increasingly difficult to establish an independent existence, with 50% of 25-year-old Americans living at home with parents.

In an economy driven by consumer and investment spending, the absence of growth in real consumer income means an economy without economic growth. Led by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve in the first years of the 21st century substituted a growth in consumer debt for the missing growth in consumer income in order to keep the economy moving. This could only be a short-term palliative, because the growth of consumer debt is limited by the growth of consumer income.

Another serious mistake was the repeal of financial regulation that had made capitalism functional. The New York banks were behind this egregious error, and they used their bought-and-paid-for Texas U.S. senator, Phil Gramm, whom they rewarded with a seven-figure salary and bank vice chairmanship to open the floodgates to amazing debt leverage and financial fraud with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall destroyed the separation of commercial from investment banking. One result was the concentration of banking. Five mega-banks now dominate the American financial scene. Another result was the power that the mega-banks gained over the government of the United States. Today the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve serve only the interests of the megabanks.

In the United States savers have had no interest on their savings in eight years. Those who saved for their retirement in order to make paltry Social Security benefits liveable have had to draw down their capital, leaving less inheritance for hard-pressed sons, grandsons, daughters, and granddaughters.

Washington’s financial policy is forcing families to gradually extinguish themselves. This is “freedom and democracy” in America today.

With the demise of the American middle class, which becomes more obvious each day as another ladder of upward mobility is dismantled, the United States becomes a bipolar country consisting of the rich and the poor. The most obvious conclusion is that the failure of American political leadership means instability, leading to a conflict between the haves—the 1%—and the dispossessed—the 99%.

The failure of leadership in the United States is not limited to the political arena but is across the board. The time horizon operating in American institutions is very short term. Just as U.S. manufacturers have harmed U.S. demand for their products by moving abroad American jobs and the consumer income associated with the jobs, university administrations are destroying universities. As much as 75% of university budgets is devoted to administration. There is a proliferation of provosts, assistant provosts, deans, assistant deans, and czars for every designated infraction of political correctness.


Tenure-track jobs, the bedrock of academic freedom, are disappearing as university administrators turn to adjuncts to teach courses for a few thousand dollars. The decline in tenure-track jobs heralds a decline in enrollments in Ph.D. programs. University enrollments overall are likely to decline. The university experience is eroding at the same time that the financial return to a university education is eroding. Increasingly students graduate into an employment environment that does not produce sufficient income to service their student loans or to form independent households.

Increasingly university research is funded by the Defense Department and by commercial interests and serves those interests. Universities are losing their role as sources of societal critics and reformers. Truth itself is becoming commercialized.

The banking system, which formerly financed business, is increasingly focused on converting as much of the economy as possible into leveraged debt instruments. Even consumer spending is reduced with high credit card interest rate charges. Indebtedness is rising faster than the real production in the economy.

Historically, capitalism was justified on the grounds that it guaranteed the efficient use of society’s resources. Profits were a sign that resources were being used to maximize social welfare, and losses were a sign of inefficient resource use, which was corrected by the firm going out of business. This is no longer the case when the economic policy of a country serves to protect financial institutions that are “too big to fail” and when profits reflect the relocation abroad of U.S. GDP as a result of jobs offshoring. Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth proves it.

None of these serious problems will be addressed by the presidential candidates, and no party’s platform will consist of a rescue plan for America. Unbridled greed, short term in nature, will continue to drive America into the ground.

Donate to us

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of The Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for BusinessWeek, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are How AMERICA Was LOST: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State and The NEOCONSERVATIVE THREAT to WORLD ORDER: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony.

How the Banksters Broke the Market; Billions More for the IMF

• Bank of America admits central banks are rigging equities game.

By Ronald L. Ray —

Long-time readers of AMERICAN FREE PRESS know that we have been relentless in exposing the massive corruption and greed in the banking industry. But it may be that this centuries-old international Ponzi scheme is about to collapse. Giving a sign that the plutocrats are preparing to eat their own, Bank of America (BoA) recently released a stunning and straightforward report, which explains how the Federal Reserve Bank and other central banks around the world have rigged the equities markets.

In the United States, a corrupt Congress is also to blame, since it unconstitutionally gave the Fed the task of not only controlling the nation’s money supply but also ensuring sufficient employment and maintaining balance in the stock, bond, and commodities markets. The Fed has—deliberately, we would say—failed its mandate, seeking only the enrichment of its private member banks, like Goldman Sachs and the Rothschild financial empire.

According to Benjamin Fowler, chief of BoA’s global equity derivatives research, in a December 9, 2015 report entitled “Fragility is the new volatility,” the years since the 2008 international financial collapse have seen unprecedented central bank interventions in the market—a monstrous manipulation of such proportions that the banksters have, in fact, “broken the market.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Fowler writes, “Essentially central banks, by unfairly inflating asset prices, have compressed risk like a spring to unfairly tight levels. Unfortunately, the market is aware the price of risk is not correct, but they can’t fight it, and everyone is forced to crowd into the same trade. By manipulating markets, they have also reduced investors’ inherent conviction by rendering fundamentals less relevant.”

In plain English, the central bankers have created money out of thin air to provide too-easy credit and even secretly bought up stocks, bonds and commodities in order to prop up an otherwise collapsing market. The market is a fraud, because real profits do not exist in too many companies, especially the largest.

The illusion of prosperity is created in this case by the central banks’ continuing injection of credit and purchases of equities. This money artificially inflates prices and balance sheets.


This manipulation has radically destabilized the markets and created a nightmare scenario. Too much liquidity—cash or credit—from the central banks has caused an artificial reduction or “compression” of risk and “forced crowding” of investors into the same trade. This compression and crowding in turn ignore the importance of companies’ fundamental worth and profitability, while producing low conviction among investors in the value and stability of the market.

Consequently, the least significant market event can trigger a panic sell-off—a “flash crash.” When investors realize the central banks are still there to manipulate the market and provide illusory “stability,” those with money left all pile back in, sometimes with even greater violence. This market “fragility” provides a new and dangerous volatility to the markets, to the point where they no longer operate according to previous fundamental norms.

Think all of this is an accident, or that Big Banking is an innocent bystander? Think again. J.P. Morgan Private Bank declared, “Mission accomplished—QE [quantitative easing] drives up equity valuations.” That is, the central banks have inflated the equities markets, in order to fool investors into throwing good money after bad. Algorithmic trading by mega-banks and traders then forces out the little guy and robs him of his money. This is a commonplace occurrence. The bankers have “broken the market.”

One honest equities fund, Nevsky Capital, confirmed this publicly and drew correct conclusions, recently closing down. Chief Investment Officer Martin Taylor stated, “Truly—to mix metaphors—butterflies flapping their wings now regularly create hurricanes that stop out fundamentally driven investors who cannot remain solvent longer than the market can remain irrational.” Unable to make money, the fund returned investors’ cash.

Add to all this the exorbitant fees charged to investors, especially to pension funds, by hedge funds and private equity firms, and a “trifecta” of avarice appears, designed to impoverish the masses and starve them in their old age.

The usury industry—banking’s true name—is like some inescapable, bottomless primeval tar pit. The financial pharaohs suck down more and more of the world’s wealth for the enrichment of the privileged few. Their greed now has reached such proportions that entire industries, economies, and nations are threatened. It is not only immoral; it is criminal.

With derivatives investments more out of control than ever, a new year of a swiftly imploding stock market and Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund, along with JPMorgan Chase and others, signaling a world economic slowdown, a global disaster looms.

No worries for the plutocratic poohbahs, though. When their Ponzi scheme collapses, they will simply seize depositors’ money for themselves in legislatively enabled “bail-ins.” The “little guy,” though, should prepare for the impending financial Armageddon and societal collapse.

It is time to end the horrible scourge of usury and fractional reserve banking. Time to end the Fed and all central banks. Time to restore constitutional money. Time for a return to a more self-sufficient lifestyle.

And it’s also time to tell Congress and the president to do these things now.

Tell them today.

Donate to us

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.

$56.7 Billion More for the IMF?

• GOP Congress OKs $211 billion credit line for international banking cartels

By Robert Romano

Tucked into the omnibus spending bill for the remainder of fiscal year 2016 was a $56.7 billion increase in the U.S. quota subscription to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This will double the current U.S. quota to $115.2 billion at today’s exchange rate.

The legislation also puts a 2022 sunset on the now-$95.8 billion New Arrangements to Borrow, a program enacted in 2009. However, watch for that to be reauthorized akin to the same way the Export-Import Bank comes up periodically before Congress. No government program ever truly dies.

In any event, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. commitment to the IMF will rise to $211 billion in credit lines in total.

The U.S. already disproportionately lends to countries via the IMF credit lines. Despite a 17.68% quota at the IMF, in actuality the U.S. currently lends 22.83% of all outstanding IMF credit, thanks in large part to the New Arrangements to Borrow.


That accounts for $18.4 billion out of $80.5 billion lent worldwide. Half of current U.S. lending comes from the New Arrangements to Borrow.

And most of that lending goes to just three countries—Greece ($18.98 billion), Portugal ($22.7 billion), and Ireland ($5.2 billion)—still suffering from the European sovereign debt crisis.

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning wrote that the IMF expansion was a betrayal by Republican congressional leaders.

“It is particularly troubling that ending the New Arrangements to Borrow was once a priority for House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, and now with her in leadership, our nation is trapped into a funding commitment that swamps that promise,” Manning wrote.

Representative Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-Wash.) had sponsored legislation in 2011 that would have ended the New Arrangements to Borrow. It had 83 cosponsors.

Now with the omnibus, not only is the $95.8 billion New Arrangements to Borrow not eliminated, but the quota is doubled, too.

“This is just one more gigantic proof point that the GOP establishment cannot be trusted with the public treasury,” Manning concluded.

Donate to us

Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

Obamacare Forcing Healthcare Into Death Spiral

By Victor Thorn —

This year, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, will be fully implemented. Though proponents tout its benefits, such as coverage for those with preexisting conditions, Obamacare has been devastating to middle-class workers and small businesses across the country.

During the third Democratic debate, held on December 18, 2015, ABC News moderator Martha Raddatz provided some shocking statistics for all Americans to mull. Since the ACA became law in 2010, those with private health insurance have seen costs rise 27%, deductibles increased by 67%, and prescription drug prices have shot through the roof.

To test the veracity of her statements, on December 23, 2015, AMERICAN FREE PRESS interviewed Lonnie Dockins, the sole owner of a small western Pennsylvania landscaping business.

When asked if he’s seen an increase in his health insurance costs, Dockins replied: “That’s easy to answer, and I can back it up with numbers. I have an excellent gold plan with maximum benefits, and for the upcoming year this policy will rise from $640 per month to $760 per month. Four years ago, right after Obamacare became law, I was paying $300 per month.”

Dockins continued: “I performed a spreadsheet on every expense for my business over the past four years. Healthcare went up like Mount Everest compared to every other cost. That means because of Obamacare and the impact it’s had on private health insurance costs, I’ve taken a $5,500 per year pay cut.”

When this reporter reminded Dockins that Obama promised a $2,500 annual decrease in health insurance costs for average Americans, he snapped: “As soon as Obamacare was passed, every person I know started seeing a sickening rise in their insurance costs. It’s an upside-down world. Money is being taken from people who work and given to those who don’t. Why are we penalizing workers to subsidize those who aren’t productive? Obama is making the opposite happen to what he should be doing.”

In terms of the near future, Dockins predicted: “Insurance companies intend to make quality plans such as mine—those with full benefits and no deductibles—so expensive that people will no longer be able to afford them. Likewise, employers will only offer their workers cheap, crappy policies that don’t cover anything. If someone happens to get really sick, they’re screwed.”

On January 5, AFP also contacted Jackson Billings, co-owner of a small manufacturing facility in northwest Pennsylvania.

Billings stated: “Because healthcare coverage has become so burdensome, our company no longer offers family insurance plans to our employees. The reason why is price.”

Confirming what Dockins previously said, Billings emphasized: “It’s rumored that in the next couple of years, small businesses like mine won’t even make healthcare benefits available. That means everyone’s cut loose and on their own. I’ve been with this company for 19 years, and ever since Obamacare kicked in, it’s been a nightmare in terms of health insurance.”

Dockins summed it up best: “People who work and pay for their own healthcare can’t afford to visit doctors anymore, yet those living in Section 8 housing, refugees, illegal aliens, and blacks on welfare can. I know this issue better than almost anyone because the money keeps being taken out of my pocket and given to people who don’t contribute to society. I guess that’s what Obama ultimately wants.”



On November 19, 2015, after losses of hundreds of millions of dollars on the program, Stephen Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, stated that his company may pull out of Obamacare entirely by 2017.

“We cannot sustain these losses,” Hemsley told analysts on a conference call. “We can’t really subsidize a marketplace that doesn’t appear at the moment to be sustaining itself.”

As the nation’s largest health insurer, this news caused panic among other Obamacare participants such as Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, and Humana. Hemsley explained that since enrollment in Obamacare has been much weaker than anticipated, UnitedHealthcare has lost $500 million over the past two years.

“If one of the largest and presumably, by reputation and experience, the most sophisticated of the health plans out there can’t make money on the exchanges, then one has to question whether the exchange as an institution is a viable enterprise,” an analyst at Mizuho Securities said.

One of the primary factors for low enrollment is cost. Despite Obama’s rhetoric, according to a November 1, 2015 article by Richard Pollock, a reporter for the politically conservative news and opinion website The Daily Caller, “Obamacare premium costs will soar 20.3% on average in 2016 instead of the 7.5% increase claimed by federal officials.” In states such as Utah, Tennessee, and Illinois, rates are expected to jump by 30-40%.

This data was alluded to on October 27, 2015 by Dr. Omar Hamada, a former Tennessee Medical Association board member.

Hamada revealed: “I see no end in sight for increasing insurance costs as long as Obamacare is the law of the land. Since becoming law, Obamacare has forced costs to skyrocket every single year.”

Part of the problem stems from a practice that largely foiled Obama’s green energy program. Namely, due to rampant crony capitalism, millions of dollars were back-doored to Obama’s biggest political donors. In addition, on top of funds being unlawfully misdirected, favored executives with little experience in the healthcare field were paid obscene salaries.

As a result, a large number of co-ops—the backbone of Obamacare—have gone belly up.

When compounded with UnitedHealthcare’s potential decision to abandon Obamacare, all of these factors could lead to a death spiral that many critics predicted years ago.

On December 1, 2015, the digital news, news analysis and opinion publication The Fiscal Times’s Eric Pianin provided this analysis: “Obamacare enrollment projections for the coming year are substantially down to 10 million, the projected cost of premiums and out-of-pocket costs are up, and nearly half of the insurance co-ops associated with the program are going out of business.”

If that’s not enough, Pianin predicted that more than 40% of facilities providing healthcare services will flee Obamacare. Obviously, that means fewer physician options for those in need of medical care.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Not surprisingly, these consequences most affect the elderly, especially those still in the workforce.

On December 22, 2015 AFP spoke with Patrick Post, vice president of membership at the Washington, D.C.-based National Small Business United, “the nation’s first small-business advocacy organization,” according to its website.

“Changes made within Obamacare’s laws are age-rated,” said Post. “Since most business owners are older, a changing rate structure now means that their personal insurance costs are substantially higher. This problem is significant because healthcare plans are becoming too expensive for senior business owners to afford.”

Post mentioned one other blemish on Obamacare: “Since employers are forced under federal law to provide healthcare if they have over 50 employees, our members say that this number has been a disincentive to hiring more workers. They won’t go over the 50 threshold because Obamacare is such a huge cost of doing business.”



During his first term in office, operatives within the Obama White House unleashed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials like Lois Lerner on tea party members and other conservative groups. Today, their sights are set on small businesses.

To understand this agenda, on December 22, 2015 AFP reached out to Jack Mozloom, media director for the National Federation of Independent Business, a small business advocacy group headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Mozloom offered this analysis: “One of this administration’s strategies was to slow walk Obamacare. They rolled it out in stages so as to delay the amount of burdensome provisions until after the 2014 midterm elections. That way, people wouldn’t so easily notice the terrible effects it’s had on dampening small businesses.”

Mozloom then exposed a little-known move that could cripple many small businesses.

“In July 2015, Obamacare specified what types of healthcare plans a business must offer,” he said. “Here’s the catch. Let’s say an employer can’t afford buying group insurance. Instead, he reimburses each worker $2,000 to buy their own private insurance. Such a move is now illegal according to rules imposed by the IRS on July 1, 2015.”

Providing critical details, Mozloom added: “The penalty for violating this regulation is much higher than the fine for not providing insurance. In fact, the IRS fine on businesses is $100 per day per worker. That equals approximately $25,000 per employee. It’s a punishment imposed on businesses for doing exactly what Obamacare proponents said they wanted employers to do, which was to insure workers. I can’t think of anything more preposterous.”

When this reporter compared this regulation to economic blackmail, Mozloom agreed, stating: “Obama and the IRS won’t let small businesses find any way around their system. It’s onerous and crazy, particularly since many small business owners aren’t even aware of the ramifications.”

Mozloom clarified another issue that is complicating matters. “An extraordinary amount of time and resources are being wasted on deciphering the ins and outs of Obamacare,” he said. “Small businesses must now hire private accountants to figure it out. They’re being forced to squander uncounted hours to be compliant, which of course piles on top of the extra costs already associated with this law.”

Pointing a finger of blame, Mozloom declared: “The Obama administration pretends to like small businesses more than large corporations, but that’s a lie. Many fees and taxes aren’t assessed on huge companies like Apple, only small businesses. Worst of all, healthcare choices have actually gone down, not up, for small businesses. Basic policies are now gone. They’re no longer a legal option. So, employers must shell out more money on so-called ‘Cadillac plans.’ Even Hillary Clinton admitted its failures. During a recent public appearance, she conceded that one of the effects of Obamacare was to not encourage employment. Businesses are shedding full-time workers because Obamacare punishes them for having these assets.”

In conclusion, Mozloom warned: “None of the promises concerning Obamacare will materialize in 2016. Rather, more of its costs and disadvantages will become clear this year. Most of the losers for Obamcare will be small business owners because of higher costs and premiums, narrower networks, collapsing insurers, and no improvement to the quality of American healthcare. Really, though, who would have thought the results would be any different except for academic theorists like Jonathan Gruber and Cass Sunstein?”

Victor Thorn

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

Are They Scared to Admit What’s in Our Food?

• Biotech lobbyists want you in dark about dangers of genetically modified foods.

By James Spounias —

A sneaky trick to attach the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act to the December 2015 appropriations bill has fortunately failed. The DARK Act is what food activists have been calling the so-called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, which would deny Americans the right to know whether there are genetically modified ingredients in their food.

However, the reality is that this legislation may yet be snuck in, as a rider to another bill, while the public is either asleep or traumatized by actual or manufactured terror.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The time to take urgent action is now.

We must call or write our senators and let them know we are opposed to the DARK Act, passed in the House as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599) in July 2015 without any meaningful scrutiny or debate.

As of this writing, no companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. However, biotech lobbyists have tried to sneak it in as a rider to other bills, such as the appropriations bill. We need to tell our senators that we are aware of these tricks and we oppose them. We do not want the DARK Act passed by the Senate under any circumstances.

More than 90% of Americans support GMO labeling, according to the activist group Just Label It. The organization reports, “Voter support for labeling GMO foods is nearly unanimous” according to a 2012 Mellman Group poll, and cites results of four previous polls as well: “93% believe GMO foods should be labeled (October 2010, Thomson Reuters PULSE™ Healthcare Survey, ‘National Survey of Healthcare Consumers: Genetically Engineered Food’); 95% of consumers believe GMO foods should be labeled (November 2008, Consumers Union, ‘Food-Labeling Poll: 2008,’ p. 13); 94% believe genetically modified food should be labeled (September 17, 2010, The Washington Post); 93% of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods (June 19, 2011, ABC News).”

Are GMOs safe?

According to attorney Steven Druker of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity and author of the book Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, the answer is no.

Druker writes: “Some of the greatest confusion involves food safety. For instance, the bill’s sponsor, Congressman [Mike] Pompeo [R.-Kan.], declared that consumer demands for labeling of GE foods have nothing to do with health or safety, and its other supporters have backed that assertion and proclaimed that no legitimate food safety concerns exist. Even the main witness who testified against the bill before a congressional committee in 2014 declared that there aren’t any. But this is flat-out false. For example, science-based concerns about the dangers to human health were repeatedly raised in memos written by the technical experts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when they analyzed the risks of genetic engineering in 1991. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official who asserted: ‘The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.’ ”

America’s FDA isn’t alone, Druker notes. “Such concerns have been expressed in subsequent years by numerous other scientists and scientific institutions as well, including the British Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the respected medical journal The Lancet. One of the strongest sets of cautions appeared within an extensive report issued by the Royal Society of Canada, which declared (a) that it is ‘scientifically unjustifiable’ to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) that the ‘default presumption’ for every one of them should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially harmful side effects.”


Even the industry’s own safety assessments, if analyzed properly, reveal that GMOs are less than safe.

Druker notes: “Laboratory testing has confirmed the legitimacy of the concerns, and a number of well-conducted research studies on GE foods published in peer-reviewed scientific journals have detected statistically significant instances of harm to the laboratory animals that were consigned to consume them. Moreover, a review of the scientific literature on GE foods (itself published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2009) concluded that ‘most’ of the safety assessments have not only indicated problems, but indicated that ‘many GM [genetically modified] foods have some common toxic effects.’ ”

This is not to suggest that the FDA or other agencies have properly acted on the 1991 declaration that Druker cites. He writes, “it’s widely believed [erroneously] that the FDA is assiduously following the law and subjecting GE foods to rigorous scientific review. But in reality, that agency has not conducted a genuinely scientific review for any GE food on the market, and far from following the law, it’s been deliberately violating the law’s express mandates in order to enable these products to be marketed without the kinds of testing that the law requires.”

Vermont has enacted its own GMO labeling law, which will take effect in July 2016. The DARK Act would override state labeling requirements, however, and this is why more attempts to sneak the DARK Act through the Senate will likely be made.

Americans would demand the removal of all GMOs and other contaminants, such as glyphosates, and the compensating of victims. Until then, having GMOs labeled is all we can do.

Donate to us

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

AUDIO INTERVIEW & ARTICLE: Firing of Professor for Sandy Hook Beliefs Cowardly


Podcast Play Button

Buy Book Button

Perhaps no recent event has ignited more controversy than what did or did not unfold at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.

Dave Gahary sat down with prolific conspiracy researcher Professor James H. Fetzer, who discusses the firing of tenured Professor James F. Tracy, one of the top media analysts in the country, from Florida Atlantic University’s School of Communication & Multimedia Studies, who gained notoriety for his questioning the ways the mainstream media presented their coverage of the Sandy Hook Elementary School event.

Dr. Fetzer also discusses the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, banned by Amazon.com and “suppressed” by their print on demand subsidiary CreateSpace, in this disturbing interview (13:42).


Softcover, 425 pages

Buy Book Button

Professor’s Firing Reveals Universities’ Shift Toward Political Correctness

• Florida Atlantic formally dismisses Ph.D. conspiracy theorist

By Dave Gahary

As this newspaper reported in the January 4 & 11 edition in the article entitled “Free Speech Clampdown” by Victor Thorn, various commercial enterprises and institutions are slowly drawing the noose around freedom of speech in this once-great nation, enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment. Although the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights is meant to apply primarily to the United States federal government in its dealings with the states and their citizens, the tradition of free speech has been ensconced throughout the country over the nearly 240 years since that remarkable document was first adopted.

Thorn’s article discussed James F. Tracy, Ph.D. a tenured professor who taught a course at the public Florida Atlantic University (FAU) entitled “Culture of Conspiracy,” that examined “the relationship between commercial and alternative news media and socio-political issues and events.”

Tracy had been issued a notice of intent from FAU to fire him on Dec. 16 “for not keeping his affiliation with the university separate from his personal writings on the Internet.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

As promised, and as expected by many observers, Tracy was informed on January 6 that that Friday would be his last day.

Tracy’s crime, explained Thorn: “denying the narrative promoted by Obama administration officials and the mainstream media in regard to Sandy Hook.”

This writer interviewed Tracy around two years earlier, when he was beginning to feel the heat from his unorthodox, politically incorrect views. At that time, Tracy discussed why he began to doubt the official story of the Sandy Hook Elementary School event, the repercussions of his viewpoints, and the state of free speech in America, as well as other topics. The interview lasted over an hour, and this writer, who has interviewed hundreds of guests, including many in the public eye, such as Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine, and Jesse Ventura, found Tracy to be the quintessential academic. After all, college is supposed to be a place where students should be encouraged to open their minds to all possibilities, not just those of the ruling elite.

In fact, during that interview, Tracy summed up succinctly the issue at hand:

“I wouldn’t be involved in studying the media and commenting on it and critiquing it, if I were not able to talk about the political element of it, because all media, especially news media, are political by their very nature.”


Tracy has not initiated a lawsuit against FAU, but he has hired an attorney. He agreed to comment via email to AMERICAN FREE PRESS on this rather sad matter on the state of free speech in America.

“I have been under a gag order by the union and the attorney the union has retained,” he wrote. “My wife, who’s a librarian at FAU is saddened that this could be allowed to happen.”

Tracy and his wife have four young children, a mortgage, and the typical responsibilities most of us need to meet every waking day.

Curiously, this past September, senior administrators at FAU attempted to institute a “post tenure review policy,” which would give a star chamber-type board “the ability to potentially terminate any tenured faculty member.” As Tracy explained in an article he wrote on this matter, tenure “has . . . been recognized as a central tenet of academic freedom because it insulates faculty from the political interests and whims of their institutions’ administrators and trustees.”

“Universities began granting tenure to professors in 1915,” Tracy wrote.

“Only about 25% of faculty at present have tenure or are on track to get it,” he later explained in an email to this writer.

“In my view, tenure is like free speech to American citizens: Faculty have it but seldom if ever use it,” Tracy added.

Although Tracy doubts that “the policy was geared just at me,” pointing to “some stragglers on campus, no doubt, who abuse the system, don’t produce any research and/or are lousy teachers,” the possibility exists that politically connected senior administrators at FAU were attempting to put a law on the books that would allow for Tracy’s removal.

Significantly, FAU’s founding was marked with the most political of beginnings. The first degree ever awarded at FAU was an honorary doctorate given to President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 25, 1964, at its opening and dedication.

Donate to us

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s ‘Underground Interview’ series. He prevailed in a suit brought by the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him.

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

AFP in Oregon: Standoff

By John Friend —

BURNS, Oregon—A protest taking place at an occupied federal facility in southeastern Oregon has entered its second week as AMERICAN FREE PRESS goes to press. The standoff currently taking place at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge just south of Burns, Oregon is a direct result of the tyrannical prosecution of two local ranchers, Dwight L. and Steven D. Hammond, who surrendered to federal authorities on January 4 after years of federal persecution, intimidation, and harassment.

AFP was on the scene at Burns to cover the standoff.

Dwight, 74, and Steven, 46, father-and-son ranchers have experienced severe mistreatment, persecution, and harassment at the hands of various entities of the United States federal government, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2012, they were convicted under federal anti-terrorism laws for starting what’s referred to as a “backfire” on their private property to combat a bigger wildfire caused by a lightning strike. The backfire lit by the Hammonds was successful and saved not only the Hammonds’s property, but also surrounding public and private land.


The All-American Hammond Family

In an incredibly unjust trial, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael R. Hogan, now-retired, sentenced Dwight to three months in prison and issued Steven a one-year prison term. Following the completion of their prison terms and subsequent release in early 2014, federal authorities appealed Hogan’s ruling, arguing the Hammonds must return to prison for the full five-year-minimum sentence required under the federal anti-terrorism law. In October 2015, the Hammonds were re-sentenced and informed they must serve the five-year sentence in federal prison.

Following their re-sentencing, the Hammonds consulted with iconic rancher Cliven Bundy and his son, Ammon, as well as local and national militia and constitutionalist groups, on ways to address and rectify the federal prosecution and harassment meted out to the Hammonds over the years. But federal authorities intimidated the Hammonds, and they ultimately decided to surrender to federal authorities.


John Friend interviews (47:29) BLM spokesman Randy Eardly

Podcast Play Button

“We have obtained appalling evidence that the U.S. Attorney’s Office threatened the Hammond family with early detention and further punishment, if the Hammond family continued to communicate with a certain individual,” Ammon Bundy stated. “This evidence foundationally speaks against the U.S. Attorney’s Office in their gross effort to infringe upon the Hammonds’s right to free exercise of speech.”

In spite of the Hammonds’ surrender, Ammon Bundy and other supporters did not back down.

On December 11, they released a notice of redress of grievance on behalf of the Hammonds, outlining in great detail the serious legal improprieties with the Hammonds’ federal prosecution and persecution. To date, the redress of grievance, which was sent to a number of local and state officials, has not been responded to in any serious way.

“I believe that the local governments have failed these people,” Cliven Bundy, the heroic rancher who successfully stood up to the BLM and federal government in April 2014, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. “The sheriff, he has the duty to protect the life, liberty, and property of his citizens. And I believe he has failed totally here.”

Locals Support Oregon Rebellion

By John Friend

You’ve heard the mainstream media and even some in the patriot community condemn Ammon Bundy and his supporters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. But the truth is, they have received widespread support from locals as well as from other ranchers and landowners across the United States. At a community meeting held in Burns on January 6, roughly 500 attendees gathered to voice their opinions on the occupation and protest.

“Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond are the nicest people that ever walked the foot of this Earth,” one local resident stated during the community meeting in Burns. “They got a rotten deal. And these people down here at the refuge—I just came from there and I talked to them and they ain’t hurtin’ a damn thing down there . . . . They brought us all together. They’re waking people up. So I think they’re going to work this out. They’re just making a statement for us, to wake us up.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Some local residents disagree with the tactics used by Bundy and his entourage, and have viewed with suspicion many of the outsiders entering Harney County to protest on behalf of the Hammonds and other local ranchers.

However, based on this reporter’s experience at the refuge and the conversations and interviews conducted, the majority of the local residents sympathize with the Hammonds’ plight and are grateful Bundy and the other protesters are bringing to light the very serious problems ranchers and other landowners are having with federal entities such as the Bureau of Land Management. Many locals have visited the refuge, bringing food, water, and other supplies for the occupation.

“We have had non-stop people since Sunday flowing through our doors wanting and giving us stories about exactly what we’ve suspected and saw,” Ammon Bundy explained during a Jan. 7 press conference that AFP attended. “I think there is something much bigger here that needs to be resolved, and until we know and understand that the people are going to end up on top here, we plan on staying.”



LaVoy Finicum, an Arizona rancher close to the Bundys and Hammonds, who is heavily involved with the current occupation, summed up the situation concisely in an exclusive interview with AFP.

The Hammonds and countless other ranchers and landowners across the country are facing a situation in which “all three branches of power—the legislative, executive, and judicial—[are] combined under one head with no representation,” Finicum explained to this newspaper. “That’s what we fought against in the beginning, was it not? Taxation without representation. Well, here we are again.”

Finicum noted that the occupation and protest is “the only step forward at this current time now. All these other ranchers have had it—we’re done, we’re through.”

“Right now we still stand with people clear across this country having all these questions,” Ammon Bundy explained in a press conference on January 7 shortly after meeting briefly with Harney County Sheriff David M. Ward. “It is important that government responds to their people and does not ignore them.”

Bundy continued by noting that the occupation and protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge began “when we exhausted all our prudent methods to petition the elected representatives and they ignore the people 100%. They do not respond in any way. In fact, Judge Steve Grasty said that everybody who signed that notice of redress of grievance was crazy . . . a bunch of crazies. That’s how they view those that look at the Hammond situation as egregious, as something really wrong. I do not believe the American people are crazy. I believe that they are concerned, and that they have a right to their land and resources.”



Many media reports have described the Hammonds as domestic terrorists due to the nature of the federal charges they have been found guilty of. Other pundits and commentators are describing Bundy and his supporters occupying the refuge as domestic terrorists and anti-government extremists.

Finicum strongly disagrees with that assessment.

“Let’s consider exactly who is a terrorist right now at this time,” Finicum told AFP. “Who was terrorized and threatened, coerced, thrown in jail once, and then once again years later for the very same thing? Was it not the Hammond family? Were they not terrorized? Were they not put under duress? Did they not lose their property? Now have they not lost their liberty? So let’s get real—who’s the terrorist?”

Pete Santilli, an independent journalist who has been covering the situation in Harney County for weeks, told AFP that the government and media have literally weaponized the term “domestic terrorist,” applying it to patriotic American citizens who dare stand up to the tyrannical federal government.

“The Hammond family basically ticked off the wrong people and the system came down upon them and they were declared terrorists wrongfully,” Santilli explained. “We need to submit and take certain steps to address the federal government, to address the local sheriffs, and to bring justice—to bring really full disclosure of the anomalies surrounding the Hammond case.”


 John Friend interviews (34:44) independent radio host and activist Patricia Aiken

Podcast Play Button


Critics have argued that Bundy and his supporters, which include other ranchers such as Finicum as well as a variety of patriot and militia-style organizations, were wrong to occupy the refuge, especially considering the Hammonds publicly distanced themselves from Bundy and other protesters.

However, after speaking with many individuals involved with the occupation and others who are knowledgeable about the wider issues relating to this case, it’s evident that the occupation and protest are about much more than just the Hammonds’ plight.

“We’re here for the people,” Ammon Bundy noted during his press conference. “And what needs to happen here is that these lands that are unconstitutionally being held, they need to be returned back to the people. And they need to have control of them, they need to be able to be free on them, they need to be able to use them without intimidation and without fear. And until we can see that that can be accomplished—it doesn’t have to fully be accomplished—but until we can see that there is great momentum and that people can get doing that themselves, then we will remain. Who knows, that could be a week—that could be a year.”

Finicum echoed Bundy’s sentiments.

“We’re here as ranching families to come and help other ranching families—that’s what it is,” Finicum told AFP, “to help them to reclaim Harney County and to reclaim their resources. I hope you realize Harney County used to be the wealthiest county in Oregon until the federal government seized all the resources. Now it’s the poorest. So we’re here. You have to ask the state to right it. If the state doesn’t right it, you have to ask the county to right it. Then, finally, if there is no more recourse, the citizens themselves must stand up and right it.”

Time will tell whether or not the local, state, and federal officials negotiating with Bundy and his supporters at the refuge will take seriously their redress of grievance and rectify the very real injustices that have been and continue to be committed against hard-working ranchers and landowners such as the Hammonds who have been harassed and intimidated for years by the federal government.

What is happening to the Hammonds “affects me in Arizona with my ranch, it affects all my neighboring ranchers that we met with,” Finicum noted. “It affects the ranchers in Idaho, it affects the ranchers in Nevada.”

Stick with AFP for more updates on the ongoing standoff in Oregon.

Donate to us

John Friend is a California-based writer who maintains a blog.

Corporations Censor Disease Origins

• Big Pharma, Big Ag fight to keep the truth about cancer’s causes hidden from public.

By James Spounias —

It can really put a crick in one’s neck following the volley of differing scientific opinions on the origin of cancer. A study done by Johns Hopkins scientists at the beginning of 2015 blamed “bad luck” for two-thirds of all cancers.

Now, a December 16, 2015 study from Stony Brook University in the journal Nature rebuts the Hopkins study, saying that 70%-90% of all cancers stem from avoidable carcinogens and radiation.

What’s a person to believe?


The Hopkins study excluded genetics and toxic environmental carcinogens as the cause of two-thirds of cancers, instead finding that during stem cell division, random DNA is incorrectly swapped for another. Hopkins scientists stated that where cells more rapidly generate, cancer is more prevalent because more stem cell division means more mutations. By not looking to environmental triggers or even genetics, which is largely overstated, Hopkins scientists personalized the cause of cancer to chance.

In the September 14 & 21, 2015 edition of AMERICAN FREE PRESS this writer emphasized that the Hopkins study could have been a clever rationale for corporate behemoths to shift blame from the growing awareness of toxicity-induced illness to mere chance. In fact, credentialed scientists who are known to deny the relationship between environment and cancer loudly championed the Hopkins study.

It would seem even a cursory examination of known carcinogens, such as Monsanto’s controversial glyphosate-enriched weed killer Roundup, would question the sanity of the Hopkins study.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

The September article included as an example a sea urchin study undertaken by Professor Robert Belle of the Station Biologique de Roscoff, which is under the authority of the Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique and the Pierre et Marie Curie University in France.

A member of Belle’s team, researcher Julie Marc, explained that “the early development of sea urchins is one of the most recognized models for the study of cell cycles.”

Belle explains:

“Concretely, we had sea urchins lay eggs. . . . Characteristically they produce large numbers of ova. We placed those ovocytes in proximity to sperm and put the fertilized eggs in a diluted solution of Roundup. I might emphasize that the concentration was well below that generally used in agriculture. We then observed the effects of the product on millions of cell divisions. We very soon realized that Roundup affected a key point in cell division—not the mechanisms of the cell division itself, but those that control it.”

Belle continued:

“To understand the importance of this discovery, you have to recall the mechanism of cell division. When a cell divides into two daughter cells, the making of two copies of the genetic inheritance in the form of DNA, it gives rise to many errors, as many as 50,000 per cell. Normally, a process of repair or the natural death of the defective cell, known as ‘apoptosis,’ is automatically initiated. But a cell sometimes avoids the alternative [death or repair], because the point that controls damage to DNA is affected. It is precisely this checkpoint that is damaged by Roundup. And that is why we say Roundup induces the early stages leading to cancer. In fact, by avoiding the repair mechanisms, the affected cell will be able to perpetuate itself in a genetically unstable form, and we now know the origin of a cancer 30-40 years later.”

It’s no secret that a significant number of people worldwide are awakening to the dangers of glyphosate-laden foods, radiation, fluoridated water, vaccinations, electromagnetic pollution, as well as heavy metals floating from the sky and polluting our water from fracking and other detrimental sources.

Was the bad luck study intended to unleash scores of more studies, further distancing carcinogens and environment as causes of cancer? This would certainly help insulate the toxicity-promoting behemoths from scrutiny.

The Nature article pointed out that the team of Stony Brook University scientists, led by Yusef Hannun, rebuked the Hopkins study but left questions unanswered.

Nature stated:

“Most cases of cancer result from avoidable factors such as toxic chemicals and radiation contends a study published online in Nature on December 16. The paper attempts to rebut an argument that arose early this year, when a report in Science concluded that differences in inherent cellular processes (bad luck) are the chief reason that some tissues become cancerous more frequently than others.”

Hannun should clarify what is “avoidable” because on its face this is a disturbing idea, which puts the blame on individuals rather than on the panoply of pollutants.

Nature quoted John Potter of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle: “There’s no question what’s at stake here. . . . This informs whether or not we expend energy on prevention.”

Whistleblower Janet McMahan has her own take on prevention.


In a comment posted to the online Nature article, Ms. McMahan wrote:

“After my son Ben, my two dogs and I developed cancer during the same time as four small children who live seven miles north of us, we found arsenic and lead in our deep well water. My husband is a physician. We asked our cancer patients to test their water as well. They also found arsenic and/or lead in their water, including those who lived in the city. There needs to be much emphasis on prevention . . . especially preventing cancer caused by drinking water. Every home needs a water filter at least for cooking and drinking . Every home needs to flush water heaters (if they have them) monthly to remove arsenic, radon, lead etc. that com es into the shower through steam. NIEHS [National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences] told my husband that they have known since the ‘80s that there is enough arsenic in the water here to cause cancer clusters, but they are not allow ed to warn anyone . Jane Perry at the Georgia Department of Health wants to warn everyone, including doctors, ‘below the gnat line’ to test water for arsenic, but so far she has not. Now four children who live south of us in Waycross Community have been diagnosed with sarcomas within 58 days.”

Will Hannun and other re searchers look to what is really killing us instead of limiting themselves to corporatist government sanctioned “causes” of disease?

Lead and arsenic in water supplies as cancer promoters can hardly be said to be bad luck or avoidable.

Nature stated:

“Hannun and his team also used other lines of evidence to try to pinpoint the contribution of environmental factors to cancer risk. They looked at epidemiological data showing that, for example, people who migrate fr om regions of lower cancer risk to those with higher risk soon develop disease at rates consistent with their new homes. The authors also examined patterns in the mutations associated with certain cancers.”

Will American establishment scientists continue to spin theories that obfuscate the real causes of disease or will they buck the system and do honest, politically incorrect research on the causes of all diseases, without worry of offending establishment funding sources?

If they don’t wake up, scientists and their families, too, may suffer the same fate visited upon the rest of us.

Donate to us

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

Free Speech Clampdown

• Billionaire book-banner Bezos, academia lead charge against free thought.

By Victor Thorn —

Just because the United States is called the land of the free and the home of the brave, don’t believe that freedom of speech and thought is alive and well. Powerful forces in America are actively pursuing policies of censorship to stifle controversial ideas that threaten the mainstream.

In AMERICAN FREE PRESS issue 51 & 52, reporter Dave Gahary detailed how several conspiracy and history books had recently been banned by Amazon. One of these taboo publications was Professor James Fetzer’s Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.


As a follow-up, in mid-December, AFP spoke with Fetzer about the efforts to sideline his book. “This is equivalent to book burning in the electronic age,” Fetzer began. “In my opinion, Amazon took it down because of pressure from the government. My book exposed how the Obama administration tried to fake its way into a huge gun-control agenda. What Amazon has done most closely resembles the suppression of the ‘Pentagon Papers.’”

The Pentagon Papers” refers to the massive U.S. military study that was leaked to the press in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg, which exposed the United States’s secret war in Vietnam. The federal government did everything it could to block the release, including threatening Ellsberg with prison for informing American citizens about Vietnam.

Fetzer added: “If these practices continue, I see us on a road to totalitarian government. We’ll be so locked into intellectual tyranny that there will no longer be freedom of the press. These hysterical violations of the First Amendment are simply absurd.”

Fetzer isn’t the only victim of such tactics. On November 27, AFP interviewed bookseller Carl Aschmann. Days earlier, Amazon had “de-listed” one of Aschmann’s titles, specifically Michael Collins Piper’s False Flags.

When asked about the reasoning behind Amazon’s move, Aschmann replied: “They said it violated their rules and conditions. Personally, I think they were probably getting pressure from the government. Amazon, I don’t think, would do it on their own.”

Aschmann provided more details during a subsequent interview.

“I contacted Amazon and explained that I hadn’t violated any of their guidelines,” he said. “After reviewing my case, they eventually relisted Piper’s book.”

Asked if he felt that everyone who sold controversial material may now be in the crosshairs, Aschmann answered, “If there is no freedom of speech, we’re all like lambs to the slaughter.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

All of which leads to another egregious example of an Orwellian boot stomping down on the neck of free expression.

On December 16, spurred on by a December 10 opinion piece by Lenny and Veronique Pozner, the parents of one of the children allegedly killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) issued a notice of intent to fire Professor James Tracy because he did not keep his affiliation with the university separate from his blog posts denying the narrative promoted by Obama administration officials and the mainstream media in regard to Sandy Hook. FAU issued an unsigned public statement: “James Tracy, an associate professor in the School of Communication and Multimedia Studies, was served a Notice of Proposed Discipline—Termination by the vice provost for Academic Affairs at Florida Atlantic University.” It noted faculty are afforded a grievance process, and Tracy has 10 days to respond “after which final action may be taken.”


Ironically, Tracy had been teaching conspiracy theories at FAU for the past 13 years. According to an April 23, 2013 article in the Sun Sentinel, FAU paid Tracy an annual salary of $64,650.

In a course entitled “Culture of Conspiracy,” Tracy taught his students to examine “the relationship between commercial and alternative news media and sociopolitical issues and events.” In an April 16, 2013 letter to the president of FAU, Gregory F. Scholtz, the associate secretary and director of the American Association of University Professors defended Tracy’s controversial views.

“It is such speech that requires the protection of academic freedom,” Scholtz wrote.

An ominous climate of authoritarian suppression has certainly descended on independent journalists, academics, and those in the private bookselling market.

When AFP reached out to Tracy on December 18, his response about FAU threatening to terminate him was brief: “I have been advised by counsel not to speak with the media about this matter.”

(After this article went to press, Tracy was fired.—Ed.)

Victor Thorn

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

Elite Media Declare War on the American People

By Mark Anderson

In the December 7 & 14 issue of this newspaper, this writer reported on the case of AMERICAN FREE PRESS reader Ron Avery of Texas and his lawsuit against the Houston Chronicle, which is based on the view that the mainstream media is actively working against the American people. The bigger picture here is that a “weaponized” media that is aligned with the state—not simply a biased corporate media—is controlling what we read, see, and hear for strategic reasons.

With nonstop undeclared wars abroad and a string of suspicious shootings at home weighing ever more heavily upon Americans, the pro-war New York Times rolled out a full-bore propaganda arsenal December 5 that seems to declare war on domestic gun rights, while presenting a fearful worldview that seeks to justify even more military violence abroad.

Echoing the late 19th-century “yellow journalism dished out by the rival Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers that sensationalized the news and helped spark the Spanish-American War, today’s information technologies and 24-hour news cycles have brought media warmongering to a whole new level, severely disfiguring Americans’ sense of reality.


Consider the Times’s so-called “reporting” December 5 about yet another “mass” shooting—in this case the one which reportedly happened in San Bernardino, California December 2.

Highlighted with a rare front-page staff editorial headlined “End the Gun Epidemic in America*,” that day’s “news” blitzkrieg peddled a highly intensified fear of Islam with a flimsy account of that shooting, allegedly involving an Islamic man and wife. This scenario invoked an Islamic State (ISIS) invasion, moving the threat in the public mind from the Middle East’s distant sands to American soil.

To underscore how seriously the Times regarded that day’s edition, the paper’s anti-gun screed was recognized in a separate Page A15 piece as the first in-house editorial on its front page in nearly 100 years. Thus, the Times reserved a special place in history for placing a bullseye on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution by calling for a deep ban on all “assault weapons” of the AR-15 variety and the relevant ammunition.

That clarion call is based on the story line that Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, are said to have left their child with a grandparent, grabbed assault weapons, and opened fire in a “rampage” that “killed 14 people and injured 21 others,” the paper noted, breathlessly adding that Ms. Malik is a “woman who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in a Facebook post.”

The Times, though, then noted that Facebook staff took the posting down on December 2, the very day of the shooting, before it could be verified. So the Times simply took the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Facebook at their word—a journalistic no-no—even though the FBI has been caught red-handed setting up terrorist attacks by baiting vulnerable people to take part as fall-guys and accomplices in false-flag operations that justify the ongoing war on terror. AFP writers and columnist Paul Craig Roberts have outlined several such cases over the years in this newspaper.

In addition, the Times, using the power of suggestion, claimed that the 2016 presidential campaign landscape is forever altered regarding the threat of Islam in general and ISIS in particular.

“The Republican candidates for president angrily demanded that the United States face up to a new world war, one that has breached its borders, threatens the safety of Americans and has brought the menace of Islamic terrorism deep into the homeland,” the Times bellowed in a front-page piece astride the anti-gun editorial.

The Times’s December 5 coverage—totaling some 10 reports, the staff editorial and two opinion columns tied to the California shooting and the ISIS threat, plus domestic gun control—was laced with stark quotes, dark inferences and highly subjective interpretations. A core point was that increasing the military’s armed violence, especially against ISIS, is fair game, and that only civilian gun violence is bad.

And there’s more.

On page A16 in the December 5 edition, the Times used the words “mass killings” or “mass shootings” nine times. A shooting of 14 people, or some similar amount, is tragic but, in my opinion, is more accurately defined as a multiple shooting, not a “mass” one. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan resulted in actual mass killings.

One of the Times’s reports referred to Australia’s 1997 national gun “ban” and buy-back. The Times called it a model for America to follow, downplaying the fact that just 20%, or 650,000, of guns in that nation were turned in. Another 2.6 million never were. Meanwhile, determined criminals anywhere are still able to obtain imported guns, included smuggled, steal legal guns, or use other weapons when gun supplies dry up. Moreover, Australia defines a “mass shooting” as consisting of as few as five victims.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

While claiming AR-15-style assault rifles are “weapons of war,” the Times’s front-page editorial griped these weapons are “barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. . . . It’s past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms and instead to reduce their number drastically—eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.”

But these types of weapons in various design styles are used by hunters and target shooters for their reliability, light weight and accuracy. More importantly, they’re suitable for protection from the criminal element and, yes, conceivably from government tyranny.

And it’s not as if the Times wants the police or military to surrender any of their guns.

It’s worth noting that AR does not mean “assault rifle.” Rather, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company that invented the general design in the 1950s.

In addition, several supposed facts in all the “mass” shootings over the last several years don’t add up, raising the possibility that civilian disarmament, more public surveillance and erosions of other basic freedoms could be enacted on the basis of false, exaggerated or misunderstood events.


Back to the recent shooting in San Bernardino, California: The mainstream media claims the Islamic couple stormed a holiday party in San Bernardino, killing 14 and injuring 21. Hours later, as the story goes, the couple died in a gunfire exchange with police. And the big media sticks with that narrative no matter what, acting as if other suspects or scenarios couldn’t possibly exist.

AFP writer John Friend in the December 21 & 28 issue documented some of the anomalies in the shooting in California.

According to PressTV and other sources, there are reports, worthy of more investigation, that witnesses in California saw three tall white men wearing black shirts, khaki pants, and tan combat boots, who may have been the actual shooters, sparking speculation of involvement by mercenary organizations that conduct false-flag operations to raise public fear and justify wholesale constitutional changes.

Most people, beset by media-encouraged “doublethink,” still won’t acknowledge that murder is murder no matter how it’s portrayed, and that modern no-win military missions, where real mass killings happen, are just institutionalized murder that threaten and do not defend Americans’ freedom. Our media-government-banker supervisors excuse any “battlefield” atrocity, including when Israeli forces mercilessly bomb Palestinian children, but condemn sporting and target guns that happen to be applicable to self-defense.

Yet if gun control has a place, how about denying Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other aggressor states the frightful weapons that the U.S. peddles around the world, helping contractors make billions in profits as the real merchants of death?

*The headline was titled “The Gun Epidemic” in  the print version of the Times.

Donate to us

Mark Anderson covers the annual Bilderberg meetings and is chairman of AFP’s new America First Action Committee, designed to involve AFP readers in focusing intensely on Congress to enact key changes, including monetary reform and a pullback of the warfare state. He and his wife Angie often work together on news projects.

Africa Being Quietly Overrun by U.S. Armed Forces

• U.S. military presence on “Dark Continent” expands at alarming rate.

By Ronald L. Ray —

Like some suicidal supernova, the government of the United States of America continues to expand its “lone superpower” empire across the planet. A major component little known and even less reported to the American citizenry is the U.S. military’s massive expansion of its presence into nearly two-thirds of the countries of Africa.

The map of this neo-colonialism looks like a tourniquet tightened across the center of the continent, squeezing the lifeblood out of the Sub-Sahara. But, just as a dying star expands until it explodes into violence and chaos, so does the invasive presence of American troops throughout 70% or more of the world portend a grisly end to our nation as we know it.

After the false-flag events of September 11, 2001, U.S. military and intelligence operations grew exponentially across the globe, ostensibly to combat “terrorism,” although it is primarily America that has been terrorizing other sovereign nations and peoples whose military capabilities are a fraction of our own. And the report card on these deadly escapades is grim.


Since the beginning of the “war on terror,” there has been a 6,500% increase in terrorism and 4,500% increase in casualties. The Bush-Obama “holy war” is an epic catastrophe of incalculable proportions.

Far from the world being a safer place, the U.S.—the “shining city on the hill”—has brought increasing death and destruction to countless lands, which previously had been, if not ideal, at least politically stable and often prosperous. Outside of the Middle East, this is nowhere more apparent than in Africa, as Nick Turse of the news and commentary website TomDispatch.com revealed recently after painstaking research in the face of repeated stonewalling by the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

For years, AFRICOM would acknowledge only one military base: Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. But now, following a building spree which shows no signs of slackening, the U.S. military acknowledges 11 major sites amid a total of at least 60 bases, secret outposts, cooperative security locations (CSLs), and forward operating locations (FOLs).

Most are what are called “lily pads,” allegedly providing minimal presence of men and materiel but designed to enable the rapid massing of troops and equipment on the shortest notice. Designed for an operational range of 400 miles, these locations provide a network which enables the U.S. military to enter action almost everywhere on the continent “within four hours,” according to a May, 2015 report in Stars and Stripes.

This is the model of the armed forces’ “new normal.” The CSLs, for example, are locations set up for 200 personnel, with airfields able to receive C-130 Hercules transport planes. Far from being, as the military alleges, just “tents, water, and things like that,” they are designed to expand quickly into larger operational facilities with a more permanent presence.

The “flagship” remains Camp Lemonnier: “a hub with lots of spokes out there on the continent and in the region,” according to Secretary of Defense Ashton Baldwin “Ash” Carter, which has grown from 88 acres to almost 600 acres. It is “home” to any number of military and intelligence activities, including major drone operations in Somalia and Yemen, as well as countless “special operations.” The last are particularly insidious, as they are increasingly secret—seemingly with no accountability—and carried out by elite troops who comprise what is essentially the U.S. president’s “praetorian guard.”

The United States is carrying out military operations in 134 countries around the world, including over 30 in Africa. To what purpose?

In the case of Africa, it is in part an experimental laboratory for the “new warfare.” For all of Barack Hussein Obama’s harangues against white Americans for alleged “racism,” he exploits without compunction the black nations on the other side of the Atlantic. Turse further points to numerous secret wars and conflicts waged by the U.S. across Africa, the Middle East and beyond.

But is this really all? Certainly it is bad enough. But going beyond what Turse is able to tell us, another likely reason for America’s military “invasion” of Africa is the growing Chinese presence on the continent—a presence marked by positive engagement aimed at assisting African nations’ economic and social development aspirations, without the U.S.’s jackbooted heavy-handedness. Americans are often woefully lacking in respect for the native peoples and cultures, fail to provide successful means of improving local conditions, and are geared more toward making the world safe for greedy multi-national corporations.

Increasingly, the U.S. military has come to resemble the perverse, destructive world of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “spooks” and black operations designed to destabilize independent-minded nations, in order to establish an American global empire which none dare resist.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

It is no credit to the American people that so many of them have been bamboozled by the warfare state’s propaganda—propaganda made more effective by the feminization of society. Now, to question either the military or moral wisdom of a given armed conflict allegedly calls into doubt the patriotism of the soldiers and sailors who serve. It is a failure to “support our soldiers”—a perverse variant on “my country, right or wrong,” which anesthetizes the emotions and deadens the intellect.

It used to be that a Christian West knew that wars should be only defensive, limited and rare. Civilians should be protected from war’s ravages as much as possible, not beaten into submission or killed by “total warfare.” Captured and surrendered enemy troops should be treated with dignity and even honor, not humiliated and tortured or treated like animals.

But the dehumanization of perceived enemies—and our own dehumanization—has advanced to such a point that many see war as nothing more than a particularly gory video game. That comes at a price, though. Such thinking and behavior leads either into a satanic abyss or to madness. The ubiquity of post-traumatic stress disorder is but one indicator of that fact.


The real enemy of the American people—and of most of the peoples of the world—is now the U.S. government. Even the so-called “Tea Party” movement has been thoroughly co-opted by the establishment and abandoned its criticism of the warfare state to become cheerleaders of death. This is in no small part thanks to the propaganda foisted upon the movement’s members by CIA shills and brutish Zionist hacks, who almost immediately gained control and turned the direction of people’s thinking back to murder and mayhem by cloaking them in an American flag.

The traditional moral concepts of limited warfare, carried out only for a truly just and defensive cause by just means, has fallen by the wayside. For at least two centuries, the Zionist New World Order has fomented the destruction of civilization for profit, masked by phony patriotism. The unforgiving precepts of the Talmud have spawned unending total warfare in the service of Zionist imperialism. Western states are the vassals of a death-dealing Israel.

The progressive destruction of any remaining civilization in Africa is but one symptom of an advanced moral disease. If Christian religion and true morality no longer have place in politics or the use of military force, the inevitable result is to treat both enemy and ally as worthless animals with no rights. Africans become mere experimental guinea pigs. Those who, like Russia, defend traditional values are treated as enemies of the state and targeted for annihilation, no matter the cost.

It is time to end the deadly mission creep to Armageddon. The Soviet-style world of U.S. military operations, patterned after the out-of-control, drug-running, sex-trafficking CIA, pioneered by former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, has become a major obstacle to peace and stability in the world. It enriches the privileged few of the military-industrial-media-banking complex, while it destroys the lives and homes of the masses.

Contact the president and Congress. Tell them to end America’s imperialism, bring our servicemen and servicewomen home, take our nation’s nose out of other people’s business, and stop the bloodshed now.

Donate to us

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.

Now Trump Knows Truth About 9-11

• Activist tells Donald Trump: Israelis, not Muslims, were only ones caught celebrating after 9-11 attacks.

By John Friend —

An activist recently got close to billionaire GOP presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to confront him over controversial statements Trump made concerning Muslims celebrating the September 11 false-flag attacks. Martin Hill, who maintains the website LibertyFight.com, had the opportunity to correct Trump, informing the maverick politician that he was wrong. It was Israelis, not Muslims, who were caught dancing and high-fiving following the terrorist event.

Trump, the maverick office-seeker dominating headlines and public opinion polls, is known to cause controversy. His frank, unabashed criticisms of the outrageous corruption plaguing Washington, D.C., the tyrannical nature of political correctness, the destructive effects of so-called free trade and globalization, and the federal government’s failure to deal seriously with the southern border and illegal immigration have dominated political headlines since he announced his presidential candidacy earlier this past summer.


Trump’s recent proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States, which came in the aftermath of the alleged Islamic-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California—an event about which this newspaper’s recent coverage has raised serious questions—has arguably caused the most controversy.

Every major Jewish organization in America has hysterically denounced Trump, as have all of the Democratic presidential candidates and major party leaders. Additionally, many mainstream conservative political commentators and activists, as well as many of the GOP presidential candidates competing with Trump, have condemned Trump’s comments and public policy proposals as “anti-American,” “nativist,” and “racist.”

Shortly after the San Bernardino incident, Trump claimed that “thousands” of Muslims in the New York City area were actually cheering and celebrating the 9-11 terrorist attacks. His comments have caused major controversy. However, what was missed in all of the uproar was the fact that Israelis connected to the Mossad intelligence agency and military establishment, who were posing as Muslim extremists, were arrested by various local and federal law enforcement agencies. The best-known case, which was covered exclusively by AMERICAN FREE PRESS, involved the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department, whose officers arrested the iconic “dancing Israelis” on the morning of 9-11.


Hill had been following the Trump campaign for weeks, eagerly awaiting an opportunity to confront the leading GOP candidate on his controversial statements regarding alleged reports of Muslims in America celebrating the 9-11 attacks.

Hill’s dedication and patience paid off in a major way at a recent Trump rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where the courageous activist openly confronted Trump about the “dancing Israelis” and Israel’s central role in planning, executing, and most certainly benefiting from the events of 9-11.

“Trump’s comments about alleged ‘cheering Muslims’ made me angry because I saw it as nothing more than an amplifying of the Zionist propaganda that Americans have been inundated with for the past 15 years,” Hill told AFP. “There is one purpose of this: to perpetuate the fear and support of the neocon imperial agenda of endless wars in the Middle East, the tyrannical police state in America, and blind support for the Israeli lobby and their diabolical geopolitical agenda.”

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Hill originally traveled to a Trump rally in South Carolina with the hopes of confronting the GOP frontrunner.

“In South Carolina, I had a chance to shake Trump’s hand—he signed my bumper sticker—and I asked him about the undue influence of the Israeli lobby in America, and if he would put a stop to it for us,” Hill explained. Trump simply refused to answer Hill’s entirely legitimate and direct question, which only fueled his determination to confront the controversial and politically incorrect presidential contender.


“When Trump went to Michigan, I spent a great deal of time, effort, and expense to be there to once again confront him,” Hill told AFP. “I was almost directly in front of the podium in which Trump was speaking, and I shouted: ‘You listen to me, Trump!’ To my shock, he actually quit talking and looked at me, in this stadium with a capacity crowd of 9,000 people, waiting to hear what I would say.”

Hill continued: “I shouted, ‘Five Jews were arrested on 9-11 in New Jersey, not Muslims!’ I added that it was, ‘Five Jews, you got it?’ and concluded with, ‘Israel did 9-11,’ a fact AFP has been exposing for years now.”

Incredibly, Trump actually listened to Hill, and described him as a “Trump guy” with “a lot of energy.” Hill was shortly thereafter escorted out of the rally.

Describing his motivation for confronting Trump, Hill told AFP: “The ‘Global War on Terror’ is a complete hoax, a fraud, and the Muslim boogeyman is a contrived enemy created by the U.S. government to inflict fear into the populace. While actual Islamic terrorism does exist, it is oftentimes funded, encouraged, and provoked by the U.S. government.

“The people need to know the truth about 9-11, a monumental false-flag event, which involved the Central Intelligence Agency and Israel, with the full consent of our government,” Hill stated. “As a Catholic, I believe that the American people should learn about the ‘Just War Doctrine’ of St. Augustine, and promote peace among nations. We have an obligation to speak the truth.”

Donate to us

John Friend is a California-based writer who maintains a blog.

Islam & the West

By Patrick J. Buchanan —

“I worry greatly that the rhetoric coming from the Republicans, particularly Donald Trump, is sending a message to Muslims here . . . and . . . around the world, that there is a ‘clash of civilizations.’ So said Hillary Clinton in the recent New Hampshire Democratic debate.

Yet that phrase was not popularized by Trump, but by Harvard’s famed Samuel Huntington. His book, titled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, has been described by Zbigniew Brzezinski as providing “quintessential insights necessary for a broad understanding of world affairs in our time.”

That Mrs. Clinton is unaware of the thesis, or dismisses it, does not speak well of the depth of her understanding of our world.


Another attack on Trump, more veiled, came in mid-December in an “open letter” in The Washington Post where four dozen religious leaders, led by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, charge “some politicians, candidates and commentators” with failing to follow Thomas Jefferson’s dictum: “I never will, by any word or act . . . admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.”

Intending no disrespect to Jefferson, if you do not inquire “into the religious opinions of others” in this world, it can get you killed.

“We love our Muslim siblings in humanity,” said the signers of McCarrick’s letter. “They serve our communities as doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, journalists, first responders, and as members of the U.S. armed forces and Congress.”

Undeniably true. But, unfortunately, that is not the end of the matter.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

Did Fort Hood and the San Bernardino massacres, the London subway bombings and the killings at Charlie Hebdo, as well as the slaughter at the Bataclan in Paris, have nothing to do with Islam?

Does the lengthening list of atrocities by terrorist cells of ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda, al Shabaab and the al-Nusra Front have nothing to do with Islam? Is it really illiberal to inquire “into the religious opinions” of those who perpetrate these atrocities? Or is it suicidal not to?

There has arisen a legitimate question as to whether Islam can coexist peacefully with, or within, a post-Christian secular West.

For, as the poet of the empire, Rudyard Kipling, wrote: “Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat.”

As of 1960, the great wave of immigration into the United States from Southern and Eastern Europe had been halted for 35 years. And the children of these millions had been largely assimilated and Americanized.

Yet, 50 years after the Turkish gastarbeiters were brought in the millions into Germany, and Algerians and other north Africans were brought into France, no such wholesale assimilation had taken place.

Why not? Why are there still large, indigestible communities in France where French citizens do not venture and French police are ever on alert?

What inhibits the assimilation that swiftly followed the entry of millions of Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Jews into the United States from 1890 to 1920? Might it have something to do with Islam and its inherent resistance to a diversity of faiths?

Set aside faith-based terrorism and Islamist terrorism, and consider the nations and regimes of the Middle and Near East.

Iran holds presidential elections every four years but is a Shiite theocracy where the ayatollah is a virtual dictator. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni kingdom and home to Wahhabism, a Sunni form of puritanism.

Those ruling regimes are rooted in Islam.

And while secular America embraces expressions of religious pluralism and sexual freedom, homosexuality and apostasy are often viewed as capital crimes in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Where Islam is the ruling faith, the Koran is secular law.


Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc saw our future on its way, even before World War II: “[I]n the contrast between our religious chaos and the religious certitude still strong throughout the Mohammedan world . . . lies our peril.”

Historically, Christianity came to dominate the Roman empire through preaching, teaching, example and martyrdom. Islam used the sword to conquer the Middle and Near East, north Africa and Spain in a single century, until stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel.

And this is today’s crucial distinction: Islam is not simply a religion of 1.6 billion people; it is also a political ideology for ruling nations and, one day, the world.

To the true believer, Islam is ultimately to be imposed on all of mankind, which is to be ruled by the prescriptions of the Koran. And where Muslims achieve a majority, Christianity is, at best, tolerated.

Nor is this position illogical. For, if there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet, all other religions are false, and none can lead to salvation. Why should false, heretical and ruinous faiths not be suppressed?

Behind the reluctance of Trump and other Americans to send another U.S. army into a region that has seen wars in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan leave us with ashes in our mouths, lies a wisdom born of painful experience.

Donate to us

Patrick J. Buchanan is a writer, political commentator, presidential candidate and author.

Now This Is Really Criminal

• Congress has created an average of 50 new crimes per year since 1995.

By John Kiriakou—

The media is fond of calling out our “do-nothing Congress.” Indeed, our national lawmakers’ last term was one of the least productive in history. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

According to author John Whitehead, Congress has created, on average, 50 new crimes per year for the past decade. Not 50 new laws. Fifty new crimes.

The trend is headed in the wrong direction. In just the five years from 2008 until 2013, according to the Congressional Research Service, Congress created 439 new criminal offenses. That made for a grand total of 4,889 federal crimes. And that’s in addition to the growing number of state and local crimes for which Americans can be prosecuted.


To make matters worse, many of these federal laws lack any mens rea, or “guilty mind,” requirement. That means you can be prosecuted even without criminal intent. Didn’t mean to break the law? Tough luck.

Not all criminalization is bad, of course. We really do need laws—new ones in some cases—to combat child pornography, human trafficking, police brutality, and other such affronts. The problem is when Congress oversteps and federal law enforcement authorities go hog wild, drunk with power.

In late 2013, Coast Guard agents—that’s right, even the Coast Guard has federal agents—stormed the home of a Washington Times reporter to search for a potato gun.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

What’s a potato gun? It’s a homemade device that uses a PVC pipe to launch potatoes and other vegetables into the air. I had one as a kid.

The agents didn’t find a potato gun or any other weapon. Instead, they seized the reporter’s notes, which identified her sources—and for which they didn’t have a warrant. The Coast Guard claimed they’d discovered government documents, but they were forced to return the notes after learning the documents were legally obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

More recently, two environmental protesters went to the headquarters of Devon Energy, a large utility with ties to the foiled Keystone XL Pipeline, where they unfurled a banner in the lobby. Taken from the movie The Hunger Games, it read: “The odds are never in our favor.”


As the banner unrolled, some glitter fell onto the floor of the lobby. Police arrived, determined the glitter was a “potentially hazardous substance,” and charged the duo with perpetrating a “terrorism hoax.” In the end the charges were dropped—but not before the protestors were booked, fingerprinted and arraigned.

There’s some light at the end of this tunnel. The House of Representatives earlier this year adopted a new rule whereby the Judiciary Committee has the opportunity to “review and improve the language” of any bill that creates a new federal crime or modifies an existing one.

The move has the support of both the conservative Heritage Foundation and the progressive National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Supporters hope that cooler heads will prevail in the committee and that federal criminalization will be slowed.

It’s a good start. But in the end perhaps what we really need are more “do-nothing” Congresses.

Donate to us

John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He served time in prison for blowing the whistle on CIA torture. He is now an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.